Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Soviet Union

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the programme of aid and assistance for the former Soviet Union.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Britain has pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to the former Soviet Union and is contributing through the EC budget about 18 per cent. of Community technical assistance and food aid, which totals £595 million. The Community has also agreed a programme of food credits worth £1·225 billion.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Clearly, the United Kingdom and the Community are doing a great deal to assist the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe generally. However, what additional measures will be taken, particularly to assist with the distribution of foodstuffs once they reach eastern Europe? My right hon. Friend will agree that empty bellies make poor counsellors. What positive action will be taken to assist people in eastern Europe and in the former states of the Soviet Union?

Mr. Hurd: It is important that food should be not only dispatched but distributed to those who need it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has ensured that the Crown Agents, for example, are working with the authorities in St. Petersburg so that our feed aid for animals around St. Petersburg—£20 million worth—reaches its destination. We are ensuring that the beef that we sent to St. Petersburg and Murmansk has got through, and we are tackling the remaining problems of distribution in Moscow.

Mr. Flannery: Is there not a grave danger of the former Soviet Union lapsing into anarchy? Did we not recently see riots on the streets of Moscow, with two factions fighting it out? Therefore, should we not use our strength and influence to try to organise throughout the west a Marshall

plan, similar to the one after the second world war, to strengthen the hands of those who are doing their utmost to stave off anything approximating to anarchy?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly in our interest that the republics of the former Soviet Union should not disintegrate into anarchy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, starvation. We believe that the next step, in considering large-scale help for the former republics, should be taken through the International Monetary Fund. That is the orderly and sensible way to proceed, which is why we are pressing and encouraging others to press for the earliest possible membership of the former Soviet republics in the IMF. Meanwhile, we are pressing for IMF teams already in Moscow and elsewhere to start preparing the ground.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union has just returned from Russia and the Ukraine? Does he agree that western aid should be given to and deployed in the former Soviet Union with care and tact so that those proud people are not humiliated or offended? Is he also aware that there is apprehension about the possibility of strings being attached to western aid? Under what conditions is western aid being given to the former Soviet Union?

Mr. Hurd: I know of the visit and am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for undertaking it. There is no doubt that such contact now is particularly useful. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the pride of the Russian people, which must be respected as we seek to help them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, when people are starving, one does not impose conditions. But the republics know that the help that is increasingly coming in technical assistance and the possible eventual macroeconomic help is tied to the prospect of reform and is dependent on the continued impetus of both political and economic reform.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary awarere is a case for feeding people who are starving in Russia, as there is for those who are starving in Africa and Latin America countries? There is also a case to be made for the Government to spend more money on overseas aid. There is a case to be made for those starving and living in cardboard boxes just around the corner—

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no case to be made for taxpayers' money being used to prop up Boris Yeltsin, who will turn out to be the David Owen of Russia?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has got around to reading his Financial Times this morning. If he has, he will have seen the eloquent article by the Russian Finance Minister. The case that he makes, which we must listen to, is for help from this country in privatisation, and the creation and stimulation of the free market and the other basics of prosperity.

Africa

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for increased democracy in Africa.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The prospects for democracy in Africa are probably better now than at any time in the post-colonial era. Although there are some countries where little progress has been made, most African nations now have, or are moving towards, multi-party political systems.

Mr. Dickens: Bearing in mind that encouraging answer, may I ask whether the Minister considers that the worsening drought in southern Africa may have implications for the process of democracy in Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, indeed I do. We are deeply concerned about the dreadful effects of the drought in southern Africa. That is why, as a first step today, I have approved £2·5 million each to Zambia and Zimbabwe in balance of payments aid to ease the difficulties that will be caused by the need to import food. We have also agreed on a further £3·9 million worth of food aid to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Mozambiquan refugees in Malawi.

Sir David Steel: Following the welcome change in Kenya's constitution towards a multi-party democracy, and in view of the unhappy news from Kenya yesterday of the repression of demonstrations in Nairobi, will the Minister not only advise that country on the international standards of multi-party democracy, which she has ennunciated from the Dispatch Box before, but suggest that, in order to disarm such demonstrations, it is time that the Government start a dialogue with the Opposition on both the timing and ground rules for an election?

Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we shall encourage dialogue wherever it is needed to promote a democratic system. The incidents in Nairobi are regrettable, but we deplore all use of violence and provocation, whether from protesters, the Opposition or Government forces. The way to resolve political differences is through debate, dialogue and the ballot box, not on the streets. That is why we urge all Kenyan political leaders to open up a constructive dialogue on free and fair elections.

Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best method for underpinning democracy is through economic stability? Has she seen the great efforts being made this year to obtain private inward investment into southern Africa in the form of conferences and other initiatives? Will she give all such initiatives her fullest support?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right: economic stability is the only foundation for the sound development of democracy. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that open market systems are developed, subsidy is abolished and there is a proper market economy in all parts of southern Africa. That is one reason why we are putting so much effort as a nation into helping countries in southern Africa to achieve just that.

Mr. Kaufman: On the question of democracy in the republic of South Africa, does the right hon. Lady agree that our objective should be to ensure that the white electorate fully appreciates that South Africa will face unprecedented international isolation should there be a "No" vote in this month's referendum? Should not we support the negotiating process now under way through the Conference for a Democratic South Africa, and so

secure the maintenance of international pressure for rapid progress towards a new, genuinely democratic constitutional order? Will those be the objectives of this Government this month, as they will he the objectives of the Labour Government next month?

Mrs. Chalker: Through the whole of their period in office, the Government have supported efforts to do away with apartheid and to ensure that when change came with President de Klerk, there would be a start towards a new constitution and the transitional arrangements that are now being discussed within the Conference for a Democratic South Africa.
We have always sought to maintain contact with all the parties and we have urged them to build on the fundamental principles already agreed. Through our influence, we shall do all that we can to ensure that there is a "Yes" vote in the referendum, because that is the only way to achieve a peaceful, prosperous, successful and democratic South Africa.

United Nations

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government have proposed for reform of the United Nations.

Mr. Hurd: In January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, which called on the Secretary-General to report on how the peacekeeping role of the United Nations could be strengthened.
We proposed the appointment of a United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator and the introduction of a United Nations arms register, and both proposals have been accepted. We have also encouraged the new secretary-general to reform the secretariat and we applaud his first achievements in that area.

Mr. Loyden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the global position in which the United Nations was established has little relevance to today's world? Is it not true that, because of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the balance of power has shifted towards the United States? Does not that make it difficult for the United Nations to carry out a peacekeeping role? Do not the problems of the third world, which is still suffering economic deprivation, need to be addressed? Therefore, will not there be a need for radical changes in the United Nations if it is to maintain any confidence and respect throughout the world?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The United Nations has found it much easier to undertake a peacekeeping role since the end of the cold war because its efforts are no longer frustrated by the clash between the super-powers. We are fortunate that the super-power that remains has no instinct or appetite for dominating the world by oppression and force.

Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend referred to the summit. Will he take this opportunity to say what progress is being made on the question of preventive diplomacy, for which the secretary-general has set a deadline of 1 July? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take fully into account the role of parliamentary diplomacy through the conference on


security and co-operation in Europe, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the North Atlantic Assembly and other relevant organisations?

Mr. Hurd: The secretary-general has been asked to produce his report on a range of subjects by 1 July. I am sure that he will not neglect the parliamentary context—which my hon. Friend leads in the IPU. It is an important element in preventing conflicts reaching the stage of war.

International Meetings

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the most important international non-EC meetings which he expects to attend this year.

Mr. Hurd: There is the North Atlantic Council consultative meeting and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe ministerial meeting this month; the North Atlantic Council meeting in Oslo in June; the economic summit of the Group of Seven in Munich in July and the CSCE summit in Helsinki in July, both of which I shall attend with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September; the CSCE council of ministers in Stockholm in early December, and Western European Union ministerial meetings in June and November.

Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that when he attends those international meetings and many others in the EC he will discover that Britain's standing, authority and reputation are vastly higher than they were a few years ago? Is not that a tribute to the work done not only by him but by his recent predecessors? Would it not be a national tragedy if that were all to be thrown away by any alternative team of Ministers, who were wrong about every international defence issue in the 1980s and who carry no conviction in the 1990s?

Mr. Hurd: That is rather a difficult question to answer. I hope that we have a reasonable record on piloting Britain's foreign affairs through troubled times. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his team are always ingenious in defending whatever the policy of the moment is; it is just that that policy is changed so often that it leaves a little bit of a question mark over whether they have any plan or direction at all.

Mr. Galloway: When the Foreign Secretary visits the Group of Seven summit in the summer, will he bang some heads together to try to bring forward a new deal for the third world? The announcements made by the Minister for Overseas Development a few minutes ago about the food situation were welcome, but people in Africa are starving and the terms of trade that they receive in their dealings with the developed countries, the problem of their huge indebtedness to the developed countries and the world order over which we now preside are such that hundreds of millions of people live on the edge of catastrophe. The Group of Seven has a responsibility to the human race to deal with that this summer.

Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself going to the G7 summit in mid-July. He was specific on that point; rather markedly so I thought. We shall be delighted to seek out his advice just

before we go if he is still a Member of the House at the time. Of course he is right on his serious point about debt and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been so energetic in pressing what are called the Trinidad terms to enable the poorest countries of the world to benefit from those terms. We shall do our best within reason and common sense to ease those burdens as best we can.

Miss Emma Nicholson: In the wake of the impressive list of meetings that the Secretary of State will be attending for the remainder of this year, will he encourage the Security Council to have a special meeting, after Britain's anticipated endorsement of the Van den Stoel resolution on the destruction of human rights within Iraq at least to ensure that human rights monitors are in south Iraq to protect the unfortunate Shias?

Mr. Hurd: We are worried about the extent to which Saddam Hussein is still able to inflict hardship and persecution on the peoples of Iraq, both the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is trying to arrange a donors conference to bring further help, but, as my hon. Friend would agree, the best relief of human rights would be if the Iraqis accepted resolutions 706 and 712 and began to sell oil, the proceeds of which could go to the relief of poverty as well as the compensation of those whom they have victimised.

Mr. Foulkes: I advise the Secretary of State to ensure that all his flight bookings are transferable. However, in the few weeks remaining to him, will he pursue at all relevant meetings the question of the massacre at Santa Cruz in East Timor. In particular, will he urge that the Indonesians should immediately abandon the trial of the two East Timorese survivors and press for a full United Nations investigation? Finally, will he make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done, that British aid and trade depend on Indonesia seeking an agreed solution and ending its illegal occupation of East Timor.

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that our trade with Indonesia depends on a resolution to that question, that is a new and rather remarkable policy statement. The hon. Gentleman must not beg policy in that way. If he does, his place on even the Opposition Front Bench will be at stake. He is, however, right about the basic seriousness of the problem, which I discussed with the Indonesian Foreign Minister—as, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done. The report published by the Indonesian Government and the action that they subsequently took—for example, against certain military commanders involved in the incident—show that they are not concerned simply with a cover-up. I agree that further action needs to be taken. We are in close touch with the Community and the United Nations about how the issue should be progressed.

Vietnam

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government


regarding that country's aid and trade embargo against Vietnam and its veto against Vietnam's membership of the IMF and the World bank.

Mrs. Chalker: We regularly discuss those issues in the relevant forums.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Secretary of State aware that the United States still appears to be at war with Vietnam and that it is blocking all aid and trade in the International Monetary Fund and World bank and through misuse of the COCOM regulations? Only recently vice-president Quayle remarked that most of the refugees in Hong Kong are political—which, as the Secretary of State will be aware, led to a halving of applications for voluntary repatriation. No quantity of private representations in the relevant forums will make any difference. It is about time that the Government said something publicly to the psychopaths who run American foreign policy, with a view to achieving change.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that United States Government policy is a matter for the United States. Now that change is coming, we are trying to ensure that Vietnam will have access to international financial institutions. We already keep under review financial contributions to the support group, because clearing the arrears to the IFIs is absolutely critical. Those to the IMF already amount to £108 million, and to the Asian Development bank, $6 million. There is no United Kingdom trade embargo. This country is Vietnam's fifth largest investor, at some $143—6 million. British industry is taking a clear interest in the opportunities that exist in Vietnam, and I hope that others will follow our example.

Sir Peter Blaker: While I cannot associate myself with some of the language used by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), many people feel that it is high time that the United States modernised its economic relations with Vietnam and started to observe the common action programme agreed between 24 countries in respect of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. In view of the events surrounding the Haitian boat people who attempted to enter the United States, does it make any sense for that country to continue opposing the implementation of the common action programme?

Mrs. Chalker: We consistently encourage observance of the common action programme in respect of Vietnamese boat people and in the light of events in other parts of the world, such as that to which my right hon. Friend referred. We have done well in trying to ensure that we could help Vietnamese migrants—more than 20,000 of whom have returned from all over the region. The success of our work, with the full support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, leads us to believe that the American Government would do better to adopt a plan similar to our own.

Middle East

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current middle east peace talks.

Mr. Hurd: The peace process continued in a fourth round of bilateral negotiations in Washington last week. A regional settlement remains an important and realistic

aim. It is encouraging that all parties remain determined to continue the process. I strongly applaud Mr. Baker's continued commitment to pushing for a settlement and we will maintain our full support of that effort.

Mr. Janner: I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises the sensitivities of the middle east peace process. As he knows that the Syrians spent the money that they received for their support during the Gulf war on sophisticated missiles from North Korea—all of which are pointing towards Israel—can he reassure the House that Britain is not getting involved in that arms process? Will he confirm the inaccuracy of reports stating that British Aerospace is involved with Egyptian scientists in uprating scud B missiles for use by the Egyptian army? Surely we must keep out of that arms process, if we are to maintain our nation's influence in the peace process that we all hope will succeed.

Mr. Hurd: The position regarding the supply of arms to Syria remains as it was when Ministers were last questioned about it in the House. As for Egypt, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is seriously suggesting that it is about to launch an attack on Israel, or is to be feared in that connection. Egypt's pioneering efforts in regard to peacemaking are well established and respected, and I do not consider such a line of questioning helpful.

Sir Dennis Walters: Now that the Palestinians have presented serious proposals on autonomy, does my right hon. Friend agree that no progress can be made unless Israel responds by agreeing to freeze the illegal settlements, and by abiding by the Geneva convention? In that context, is not the continued closure of Bir Zeit university, which was announced the other day, an intolerable provocation, and should not it be condemned?

Mr. Hurd: Clearly, it is good that the Israelis and the Palestinians are sitting around a table in Washington, and that each side is advancing ideas for the future of the occupied territories. That is a considerable plus. I have not yet studied the Palestinian proposals, which, I believe, were tabled only yesterday, but I hope that there will now be proper discussion of the proposals that are on the table.
Given that background, my hon. Friend is right in saying that—as we have often commented—the Israelis ought to halt the policy of establishing settlements in the occupied terrorities which is provocative and, in our view, illegal. I equally deplore the continued closure of Bir Zeit.

Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Israeli ambassador to discuss the Government's policy on the occupied territories.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no specific plans to meet the ambassador, but both he and I have met him recently. We are in regular contact with the Israeli Government at the highest level on this issue.

Ms. Hoey: Will the Minister take time in the next week, as a matter of urgency, to meet the Israeli ambassador and tell him about the feeling in the country generally that the Israeli Government are literally getting away with murder? I refer to the case of Mustapha Akkawi, who was killed after being tortured in prison just over a week ago.
Just what does Israel have to do—what can it get away with—before the Government are prepared to do something internationally about sanctions and to treat Israel as we treat other countries that break the Geneva convention?

Mr. Hogg: Like the hon. Lady, we believe that the fourth Geneva convention—the protocol—applies to the occupied territories. When grave breaches of the convention occur, we raise them frequently, and directly, with the Israelis. The incident mentioned by the hon. Lady is clearly deplorable, as are the deportations that occur from time to time and the closures of universities, about which we have also protested.
The hon. Lady can be sure of this: we do protest to the Israeli Government when there are clear, serious and obvious breaches of international law.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that, in recent years, several hundred Arabs have been murdered by terrorists for co-operating with the Israelis? Does he accept that those brutal killings, which are still taking place, do not help the peace process?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pattern of killing involving those who are described as collaborators. That is dreadful and we deplore it, as we deplore all violence. It emphasises the importance of trying to push ahead with the peace process that is now under way.

Horn of Africa

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest view of the prospects for long-term peace (a) in Mogadishu and southern Somalia and (b) in northern Somalia.

Mrs. Chalker: The situation is very grim for the innocent people of Somalia. We welcome the United Nations initiative on Somalia. We hope that the factions will honour their commitment to a ceasefire in Mogadishu. This must be the first step towards national reconciliation.
Reports from northern Somalia suggest that instability is, once again, growing and clan divisions widening.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I know that she will have been as horrified as the rest of us by the images and the conflict that was reported from Somalia last weekend. Does she agree that one unfortunate thing about the United Nations effort to seek peace between the factions in the south is the implication that those factions, together, represent a Government? Does she agree that the factions that are fighting in the south have no claim to represent the north, which has the main link with the Somali community in this country, and that all factions in the regions of Somalia must be involved in reaching a settlement that can be expected to last?

Mrs. Chalker: It is extremely important that all the factions—not just the clans but the sub-clans—in northern, southern and central Somalia come together under the United Nations plan for the ceasefire. I sent one of our officials to Mogadishu and northern Somalia just over a week ago. He reports that stores and vehicles belonging to the Save the Children Fund and Médecins sans Frontieres—MSF—have been looted and that individuals have been abused. If that is starting again, it is

as bad as what is going on in Mogadishu. It requires all people to be involved in a ceasefire and a total cessation of hostilities if the aid that we are willing to send—we have sent£8 million to Somalia since early last year—is to get to the people who desperately need it.

Mrs. Currie: Given that the appalling tragedy in the Horn of Africa will not end until there is peace, and given the changes in the pattern of the United Nations' work in recent years, which our Government have so actively supported, does the Minister think that we are now reaching a stage where British troops could be deployed under a United Nations banner in humanitarian action as a precursor to effective aid?

Mrs. Chalker: In northern Iraq, we have used British troops to help in that situation. We need a UN relief plan for Somalia as soon as possible. I cannot foretell what proposals it will contain, but without an effective ceasefire no one can be deployed. Having talked to James Jonah following his visit and having seen the national reconciliation plan, I am prepared to consider what is necessary. But we should be very careful not to expect to send troops all over the world. I believe that there are ways of getting local people to participate in their own ceasefire with some help from outside, but it should not need mass troop movements to do it.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister will he aware of the valuable contribution that is made by members of the Somali community in this country and of the tremendous work that is done on their behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Since only the United Nations can do the job of peacemaking, is the Minister concerned that just over half the value of the assessments on individual countries for last year has been paid, and will she therefore press other members of the international community to ensure that they give the United Nations the resources to do that necessary peacemaking and peacekeeping job?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may already have guessed that we have been pressing others to play their part in the important work in which the United Nations is engaged. I shall add that to the list of discussions that I shall be having shortly with other assisting countries who are aiming to relieve the awful effects of the wars, wherever they may be occurring.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a tragedy if law and order is beginning to break down in the north of Somalia, in what is, after all, the old British Somaliland and is now known to local people as Somaliland? If it is breaking down, it is to some extent because the international community has not recognised the separate nature, if not the independence, of that part of Somalia. Will she do everything within her power, with our European Community partners, to ensure that all the people of Somaliland are listened to, not just the factions in the south who, after all, have an Italian connection rather than a British one?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot speak too highly of all the British people who have been in the northern part of Somalia seeking to give help and to assist. They will go on doing so, but they can be effective only if the fighting which seems to have broken out and the looting that I described cease. It is not a question whether it is a separate country


—it obviously is not. The relative stability in the months following the purported declaration of independence back in May last year was very welcome and we must do all that we can to re-establish it, but sheer names on pieces of paper will not do so. We must have a relief plan that the United Nations can implement throughout Somalia if there is to be peace and if the people are to be relieved.

EC Presidency

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's principal goals during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC.

Mr. Hurd: Our first job will be to run an efficient presidency. We aim to complete the single market, prepare for enlargement of the Community, support democracy and reform in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and prepare the ground for carrying out the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Stevens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will remain firm against raising the present European Community budget ceiling and that they will continue to encourage EC financing arrangements based on supply-side economics, not on the massive transfers of money between one country and another through the Commission?

Mr. Hurd: We had a first skirmish on that at the Council on Monday. I do not believe that the Commissioners justified their proposal to raise the ceiling. There is headroom within the existing ceiling—for example, we are not in favour of financing an interventionist industrial policy or increased spending on the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Bernie Grant: If the Foreign Secretary is still here—which I doubt—when Britain takes over the presidency of the European Community, will he insist that some race legislation is passed in the European Community to protect black and minority ethnic citizens when they move around Europe?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is a matter within the competence of the Community.

Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European partners are not losing sight of the need to make the European Commission democratically accountable, any more than they are losing sight of the need to conform to the European Commission directives that we scrupulously honour?

Mr. Hurd: When I talk about implementation of the Maastricht treaty I mean that one of the things that must be done is to set up the arrangements agreed at Maastricht by which member states can be taken to the European Court and punished if they do not carry out obligations that they have assumed.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the Government's principal goals during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community should be to secure recognition and acceptance of national boundaries by all member states?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that there is any question in the Community of the boundaries between the member states.

Mr. Soames: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent proposals tabled by Sir David Williamson for the reform of the bureaucracy running the European Community? Does he agree that if—in his admirable phrase—we are to prevent the Commission interfering in the nooks and crannies of everyday life, it would be greatly to the advantage of all European countries if there were a thorough overhaul of the mechanics for the administration of the Commission?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. What the Commission has to do now there is a new article in the Maastricht treaty is to ensure that its practice complies with it and that it does not encourage the drafting of legislation or the working out of projects on matters that can perfectly well be dealt with by member states, or even closer to the citizen, and that applies to English and French cheeses.

Mr. Robertson: Of course, this Government will not be responsible for Britain during the presidency—they will be watching from the Opposition Front Bench. That is fortunate for Britain. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's attitude in Maastricht has left a crippling legacy of anger and resentment among our Community partners about the double opt-out, and that it has even led to a denunciation of the Prime Minister and the Government by their own right-wing allies in the European Community? The new Labour Government who will be elected five weeks tomorrow will immediately sign the social charter and set about getting the social chapter firmly into the treaty itself. By doing so, and by being at the heart of Europe, that Government will be able to represent Britain properly during the presidency.

Mr. Hurd: There seems, not for the first time, to be a division between the Opposition Front Bench and Back Benches. Opposition Back-Bench Members have been questioning my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself on the basis that we shall be here for a long time, whereas Front-Bench spokesmen still nurse the occasional illusion. Let us not shatter that illusion for a week or so. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is not usually given to fanciful rhetoric, and if he studies the movement of opinion in Europe he must know that since Maastricht more and more people have begun to comment on the future of Europe in the same sort of way as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I did before. There is no doubt about the direction in which the intellectual tide is flowing. On the whole, that is a good thing. Another reason that we should be against the Labour party is that we should not put them in a position to buck the trend.

Russia

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance he is providing to help political and economic reform in Russia.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with the Russian Federation.

Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom is assisting the process of political and economic reform in Russia.

Mr. Hurd: Our relations with the Russian Federation are excellent. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will visit Russia on 9 March. We have strongly supported Russia's application to join the IMF. We have pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to Russia and other republics of the former Soviet Union. I have already given the House the details about Community aid in which we participate.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Foreign Secretary also help to provide a breathing space for the Russian Government, by supporting their call for a suspension of interest payments on the debt? Would not it be a disaster if Russia ended up having to pay as much in interest rates as it received in aid? Would not that fatally undermine the radical, bold and much-needed programme that President Yeltsin is now trying to push through?

Mr. Hurd: The crucial factor is that Russia and the other republics should be eligible for macroeconomic aid on an IMF basis. For that to happen there has to be an arrangement about the former Soviet Union's debts. An agreement has been reached. It is important that it should be honoured and that republics such as the Ukraine, which have not yet found a way of doing so, should join in the process. That is a necessary part of providing the kind of aid for which there is an increasingly strong case.

Mr. Arnold: Is not one of the problems of Russia in its current economic difficulties that the country might turn in on itself and revert to its usual historic xenophobic tendencies? Is not it our job to keep open the window on the west? What are we doing in terms of establishing contacts right across the range with Russia, to keep it closely tied in with western Europe?

Mr. Hurd: We are doing more and more, with all kinds of projects. I shall name just the latest, launched yesterday evening—the British Emergency Action for Russia and the Republics Trust, founded by Lady Braithwaite, the wife of the ambassador--which is trying to bring together in an imaginative way charities and non-governmental organisations in this country to make contacts and help to build up that kind of self-help in Russia. That kind of spontaneous effort, by all kinds of people in this country, will he just as important in the long run as what Governments do.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that until now, there has been little to encourage the new democracies of central and eastern Europe to change their minds about the EC being a rich man's club? Will he do all that he can to ensure that within the EC, there is some agreement about how we shall tackle the enormous problems, which will not be tackled by charity, however welcome that is? If we do not do that, shall not we see hordes of people sweeping from eastern Europe into western Europe simply looking for jobs?

Mr. Hurd: That is right and that is why we have pressed energetically for almost two years for the association agreements, which include trade and political discussions, with Poland, with Hungary and with Czechoslovakia. That is why we are now pressing for trade and

co-operation agreements with the republics further to the east. Effort on all those fronts, including trade and being willing to open our markets to goods from those republics, is necessary. We shall continue to press for that and, as I have said, it is one of the priorities of our presidency.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to persuade Russia that its political stability depends on the stability of the region as a whole, especially its neighbours? To that end, will he encourage Russia to use its good offices to intervene in the appalling situation in Nagorny Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, if Russia is to win its spurs as a member of the Security Council and ultimately as a member of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe?

Mr. Hurd: I urged especially Mr. Kozyrev, the Russian Foreign Minister, to persevere with his efforts. Realistically speaking, it will be a little time before there is an answer to the terrifying question between Armenia and Azerbaijan. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will go to that part of the former Soviet Union next week and I look forward to hearing what he recommends.

Lockerbie Bombing

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments there have been in relation to the attempts by Her Majesty's Government to secure the extradition of the two Libyan nationals accused of bombing flight PA 103 in 1988; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 731 on 21 January endorsing certain requests put to Libya on 27 November by the United Kingdom, the United States and France in connection with the bombings of flights Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. Those included the request that Libya surrender those accused of the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 for trial in Scotland or the United States. The secretary-general will report formally on the Libyan response to the Security Council later today. I have, however, seen an advance copy of the report, which makes it clear that Libya has still failed to comply with resolution 731.

Mr. Grant: Will the Minister confirm that under the terms of the 1971 Montreal convention, which was signed both by Libya and by Britain, any dispute can be referred for arbitration to the International Court of Justice? Now that Libya has referred the matter to the International Court of Justice, will Britain desist from trying to get the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions or take military action against Libya until the International Court of Justice has ruled on the matter?

Mr. Hogg: Her Majesty's Government have the greatest respect for the International Court of Justice and we look to co-operating with it. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Libyan Government have been taking steps in parallel—that is, they have made an application to the ICJ and, at the same time, they are making a response to the UN Security Council. They are working in parallel. That being so, it is appropriate for us to act in a similar way.

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, apart from the political complexities, the matter is


straightforward? Two suspected murderers have had international arrest warrants issued against them and the Government's intention is to pursue those arrest warrants. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that there will be no secret deal and no secret negotiations, but that the international arrest warrants will be executed as soon as the opportunity arises?

Mr. Hogg: Her Majesty's Government have put the position plainly and it has been endorsed by the Security Council. There is a prima facie case against two named individuals which is sufficiently strong to justify the issue of warrants. We are anxious—indeed, we are determined—to ensure that those individuals appear before a competent court as speedily as possible. We think that the courts of Scotland are well placed to judge them.

Cyprus

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to have discussions about the Cyprus problem with his European Community colleagues.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): No. The EC has made clear its continuing full support for the United Nations Secretary-General's mission of good offices, which offers the best hope of progress towards a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the intercommunal dispute. We shall continue to give full and active support to the United Nations.

Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it not time that the Government stood up and were counted by telling the Turkish Government to remove their troops from occupied Cyprus and saying that if they do not do so the British Government will veto any attempt by Turkey to join the EC?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I share, and I believe that the whole House shares, the hon. Gentleman's frustration at the tragic situation in Cyprus. But I am sure that, as a reasonable man, he will agree on reflection that the wisest course of action for the Government is to continue to support the secretary-general's efforts. That is what we shall do. Of course, we shall also continue to encourage the other guarantor powers,—Greece and Turkey—to play an equally constructive role. I am sure that that is the way forward.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear statement of the Government's policy on Cyprus. Does he agree that Cyprus's application to join the EC provides a positive opportunity for other EC states, including Britain, to take a positive attitude to finding a solution to Cyprus? I hope that our Government will encourage other EC states within the United Nations fully to back up the United Nations and put pressure on Turkey to find an early solution.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and all Members of Parliament for their continued interest in the matter. The EC application was referred on 30 September 1990 to the Commission for an opinion, in accordance with the treaty. When that opinion emerges,

we shall, of course, examine it with our partners. But we remain keen, as many partners do, to strengthen relations between the Community and Cyprus.

Mr. Kaufman: Surely the Minister ought to be a great deal more forthright and clear on the subject than that. Will the United Kingdom advocate the early admission of Cyprus to the European Community? Will he say that the United Kingdom will not agree to Turkish membership of the EC so long as any Turkish troops are present in Cyprus against the wishes of the present sovereign Government of Cyprus? Does he agree that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Community until its human rights record is rectified? Will he give active support to a federal solution for Cyprus which does justice to both communities within the integrity of the sovereignty of the republic of Cyprus?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been rushing up and down the country making what I take it he regards as encouraging noises to Cypriots, Kashmiris and others. British Cypriots are well able to judge what weight to place on his remarks. The policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is to support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is the wisest policy for both the British Government and other Governments in the Community. No amount of faffing around by the right hon. Gentleman will convince either our allies or Cypriots.

Mr. Alexander: The presence of Turkish troops is clearly a hazard which makes life difficult in seeking a compromise agreement. Is it not clear that the northern Cypriots are afraid that if the troops go they will simply be overrun? Is there not a case for the EC to reassure both sides that they can live in peace if the troops go? I underline that the presence of the troops is causing the problem at present.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that a significant reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement. However, we also have to recognise that the Turks are unlikely to agree to that in advance of a settlement. My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that our contribution and support for the secretary-general is not merely a matter of words. We make a substantial troop contribution to the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, UNFICYP, which we think is a tangible measure of the efforts that we are giving to peace there.

Soviet Union

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the former Soviet Union to discuss matters relating to technology transfer and aid for the republics.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in January and discussed such question then. I visited St. Petersburg also in January.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister believe that a vitally important stabilisation fund for Russia can be made


to work successfully without tackling the problems of food supply in Russian markets, especially when we consider the consequences for money supply and wage inflation?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will know from our debate this morning that the United Kingdom is fully ready to play its part in providing the financial assistance, on a multilateral basis, which is likely to be necessary to support an IMF programme—such as the stabilisation fund or some other suitable instrument—for the former

Soviet Union, and especially for Russia. I sought to explain to him then and before that we not only need to sort out finance but to get on with distributing the food that they can grow, with the production of the food that they do not grow, and sort out their system of feeding the people. That is why, through the know-how fund, endless new ideas and help available, which are being paid for by this country to assist with the production and distribution of food. That work will continue, but so will work on economic reconstruction.

Northern Ireland (Prison Management)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Lord Colville's report on the management of paramilitary prisoners in Belfast prison. Before dealing with the substance of his report, which is published today, I should like to express my thanks to my noble Friend Lord Colville for the thoroughness and speed with which he carried out a very difficult task.
The House will recall the tragic events which gave rise to his review. On 24 November last a device exploded in the dining hall in C wing in Belfast prison. One prisoner was killed outright, another mortally wounded, and several others less seriously injured. The efforts of staff in rendering first aid immediately after the explosion were in the highest traditions of the Northern Ireland prison service and earned the thanks of the relatives of the prisoners who died. On 26 November the Provisional IRA admitted responsibility for the outrage.
Three inquiries were established: a murder investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which continues; and an internal and necessarily confidential review of security procedures in the prison by a senior official of the prison service. Most of its recommendations have been implemented and decisions on the others will be made shortly. The third strand was Lord Colville's inquiry into the operational policy for the management of prisoners of opposing factions in Belfast prison.
The central conclusion of his report is strongly against further segregation within the prison system. It also recommends: that, in Belfast prison, numbers in A wing, the only wing at present housing exclusively paramilitary prisoners, should be reduced; that, out of concern for visitors' safety, those prisoners should have separate visiting arrangements; and that time on remand in custody awaiting trial should be reduced, his preferred method being that the powers in section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 should be used.
I accept the report. I shall comment on each of the recommendations in turn. First, the question of segregation. Lord Colville brings out very clearly the increased risks posed to security by segregation. He says:
All the lessons from history suggest that segregation facilitates escapes, and escapes will give freedom to paramilitary fanatics, of both factions, who will kill and maim outside prison.
On security grounds 1 am satisfied that Lord Colville's recommendation is right.
Moreover, I am also satisfied that segregation would make it more difficult to offer constructive regimes for inmates, as it already has at the Maze. It would constrain the flexible and effective use of the available accommodation. The opportunity which segregation would provide the paramilitaries to reinforce their cohesiveness within the prison would have an adverse effect on the morale and self-esteem of staff.
I turn now to the reduction of numbers in A wing. There are obvious advantages in keeping untried prisoners together in a more central location. I am pleased to tell the House that the governor can implement this recommendation within the next few weeks, when the necessary construction work will have been completed, without the need to move those prisoners out of Belfast prison.
The recommendation on separate visits is not free from difficulty, but Lord Colville believes that the change is justified in the interests of the safety of visitors, and I have concluded that it should for that reason be accepted.
The case for cutting down remand times has always been strong. Lord Colville concludes that it is now unanswerable and I accept that conclusion. Delays in these cases are, of course, inextricably linked to the terrorist situation, which gravely complicates the investigation of crime and the criminal process as a whole. But it is not acceptable that people should remain for long periods without a trial. Together with my ministerial colleagues, I am urgently considering how the very real problems which exist might best be resolved so that those unacceptable delays can be overcome.
Segregation remains a key objective of the paramilitaries. In resisting campaigns by both factions, prison governors and their staff have implemented the policy of successive Administrations. There now have been three major reports by respected and independent figures which say that segregation is wrong. Lord Gardiner, in his report published in January 1975 on measures to deal with terrorism, recommended that special category status—segregation writ large—should be ended and that the influence of the terrorist leaders must be reduced. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir James Hennessy, in his 1984 report into the Maze escape of the previous year was in no doubt about the increased threat to security posed by segregation. Lord Colville, having taken evidence from a wide range of people, has come to the same conclusion.
My predecessors accepted the recommendations of Gardiner and Hennessy and I, in turn, have concluded that I should accept the recommendations of Lord Colville. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to this House for the clear stand which has been taken over the years against segregation to be set aside as a result of paramilitary violence and in the face of unequivocal advice from three such distinguished sources and the powerful arguments that they have deployed.
The bomb explosion in C wing in Belfast was an act of terrorism no different from the murder of workmen at Teebane or the killing of people who happened to be in a betting shop at the wrong time. None of those events will deflect the Government from what they believe to be in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for coming quickly to the House to make this statement.
Before I deal with the content of the statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has asked me to convey his apologies for his absence this afternoon. He was on his way to the airport this morning when he came upon ,the scene of the foul murder of one of his constituents, who was known to him. He has asked me to express his horror at such a vicious killing—a horror tht I know the House shares. My hon. Friend was looking forward particularly to making his observations on Lord Colville's important report.
Lord Colville was asked to produce his report in the aftermath of another vile act of savagery within Belfast prison. We owe him our thanks for the thoroughness and rigour of his report—qualities which we have come to expect from him. We welcome the fact that the


Government have been prepared to accept his recommendations so quickly and largely in full. Our only regret is that the Government have been unable to follow a similar course with many other recommendations that Lord Colville has made about other issues associated with prisons in Northern Ireland.
It is also proper on such an occasion that we should pay tribute to the staff of Belfast prison. They have to work in very primitive conditions, in a highly charged and emotional atmosphere. The staff, at all levels, conduct their difficult task with bravery and dedication. We should pay them proper respect for doing a job that many in the House and within the country would not be happy to carry out.
A number of questions arise from the report and the incident that gave rise to it. The Opposition are glad that the Secretary of State has decided to accept the recommendations. In particular, we are pleased that he will use his powers to reduce remand periods, a course of action that we have urged on him and his predecessors for quite some time. What time limits is he considering? Will he flesh out what he said about the discussions that he will be having with his ministerial colleagues? The House and the country would like further information on this because the reasons for these long periods of remand in Northern Ireland give rise to many accusations.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the physical state of Her Majesty's prison in Belfast, despite recent improvements, is still very much a blot on the face of the Northern Ireland prison service? We know that much money is being spent and many improvements are to be made, but it is still an old, expensive, badly designed prison, which will always cause problems not only for the prisoners but for the staff.
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that prisoners will be kept in humane, secure, sanitary and safe conditions? Will he assure the House that he will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this is the case? Lord Colville spoke about the best of private practice in Humberside. Will the Secretary of State be able to establish the same sort of regime in Belfast prison, as we shall ensure that it is maintained in the Humberside prison once it is brought back into public control?

Mr. Brooke: I know that the House would want to respond to the apology that the hon. Gentleman made on behalf of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I am sure that the House will join the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation of the murder of Mr. Gray in County Armagh this morning.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thanked my noble Friend Lord Colville, as I did. I am particularly grateful for his tribute to the prison staff in Belfast prison and throughout the prison service in Northern Ireland. It was my privilege to meet a number of the staff who were directly involved in the incident after it occurred, and I join the hon. Gentleman in his admiration for the work that they do.
It will take a little time to conclude our examination of the various steps that we can take to improve the remand period. Some steps have been taken and we can take further steps, but I would not want to be drawn today on how we can determine the target times. I have accepted the spirit of Lord Colville's recommendation.
As to the improvements to Belfast prison, it is known that a rehabilitation of it is envisaged, but that is

necessarily somewhat more for the longer term. As to Lord Colville's recommendation to which the governor has reacted, the consideration that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will have been taken into account in the rearrangements made.

Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State will know that we wish to be associated with his tributes to the prison staff and to Lord Colville.
On the basic principle of segregation, the Secretary of State will know that we agree with Lord Colville. Nevertheless, as the Secretary of State will also know, there is a de facto separation in A wing. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that prisoners there will not be compelled to mix?
As to the general position of the prisoners, the right hon. Gentleman will know of the general condition in the prison, and that the length of time that people spend on remand is crucial. I have seen plans for the refurbishment that the prison governor wishes to take place and for the restructuring of the cells, and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the prison governor's ideas and implement them as soon as possible. When will refurbishment take place?
We accept Lord Colville's views on time limits for remand, and his view that the Scottish model is the best one to follow is right. What is the problem with regard to the length of time on remand? Lord Colville says that delays are not caused by lack of prosecuting counsel, that there is no shortage of court accommodation, and that delays are not caused by requests for a particular defence counsel. What, then, is the problem?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to Lord Colville and the prison staff. His first question related to the de facto arrangements within Belfast prison. Following representations in 1990 by certain public representatives, the Government introduced new unlock arrangements to reduce the possibility of confrontation between the factions. Those involve staff making an assumption about which faction will accept the offer of exercise or evening association. Those sensible and pragmatic arrangements fall far short of segregation, and I confirm that the position will remain as the hon. Gentleman asked.
The hon. Gentleman asked about remand times. When the enabling powers on the application of statutory time limits to which I referred in my statement were taken in 1987—they were renewed in 1991—the then Minister of State said that the Government would have to be confident that any scheme was unlikely to have the effect of procuring the release on bail, or even the discharge, of a person indicted for serious terrorist crime. That prospect was still a possibility when the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 was debated, and it remains so today. Therefore, that consideration will weigh with us in examining the issue.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the difficulty of raising the time limit. Several conditions will apply. He will know from his research that the number of weeks on remand had been falling and that the trend then reversed. One of the questions that we have been asking ourselves is why that change occurred. The upsurge in terrorist violence since 1989 greatly complicated investigations by


the RUC and has resulted in a number of complex, multi-defendant trials, which largely negated the effectiveness of our initiatives.
There is no value judgment in what I am saying—I am simply being descriptive. Additional factors have been the increasing tendency of the defence to challenge police notes, and to request ESDA—electrostatic data analysis —tests and the problems experienced by the RUC in interviewing witnesses in certain areas.
I reiterate that the issues responsible for the delay in remand times are being considered urgently in the light of the reversal of the trend.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I join in the expressions of thanks to Lord Colville for his report and to the prison staff for their excellent work in difficult circumstances.
There is a real problem with lengthy remands in custody. Has the Secretary of State noticed that, when a case comes to trial, the defendant or defendants sometimes plead guilty at that late stage? Can discussions take place to ensure that, if a defendant is to plead guilty, his case is brought before the court as quickly as possible?

Mr. Brooke: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's question. It may be helpful to the House if I list the administrative measures that have been introduced in the past few years to help reduce waiting times. They include: a review of the organisation and staffing levels in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, relevant sections of the RUC and the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory; the establishment of a fast stream to identify and take forward cases that can be brought to trial relatively quickly; the appointment of a presiding judge at Belfast Crown court to oversee the listing of cases, and two additional High Court judges, one additional county court judge and 12 additional Queen's counsel, significantly increasing the number of senior counsel available for criminal cases.
In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I should have said that the major building work at Belfast prison is in preparation. The Government are taking it seriously, but I do not wish to commit myself to the precise moment at which it will be done.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I also wish to express my appreciation of the work of Lord Colville and my satisfaction at the fact that the Secretary of State has been able to accept Lord Colville's recommendations. I am glad that the Secretary of State is working towards implementing the remand recommendations, while understanding the difficulties. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to report progress to the House as soon as he can?
The Secretary of State referred to the internal and necessarily confidential inquiry into security procedures, and said that decisions were expected shortly. Naturally, I do not ask him to reveal the nature of those recommendations, but can he say whether there has been full consultation with the prison staff, both about matters that may have been thrown up by the security inquiry and about the implications of the intentions regarding the numbers in A wing? Have they met with the understanding and backing of the staff?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Lord Colville. I shall as soon as possible vouchsafe further information on the recommendations on remand times that we are considering. Most of the recommendations of the internal security review at the prison have been implemented. Unless we are prepared to countenance draconian measures that would seriously and adversely affect the quality of life for all prisoners and their visitors, absolute security cannot be guaranteed.
The prison service has rightly earned praise, both in the Province and elsewhere, for the overall quality of the regime that it provides. Neither it nor I wish to make life less tolerable for the many because of the actions of the few. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the prison service has always made it clear that it will seek properly to carry out the Government's decisions about the prison regime.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am all for integration, as distinct from segregation, in Northern Ireland, but is not relative integration among paramilitary prisons presenting many problems? The significant point in Lord Colville's reports seems to be that, if groups are segregated, it leads to cohesion within them, which means that escapes and other activities are more likely. Relative integration begins to break that down. Are there not other methods, apart from relative integration, to break down that cohesion?

Mr. Brooke: I think that the central point of Lord Colville's report is that segregation makes the planning of escapes easier. The fact that those held on remand in Belfast prison are prisoners who have recently been arrested and whom the paramilitaries would particularly like to have outside prison reinforces Lord Colville's recommendation, to which I think the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) gave support.
Separation is a word that has been quoted as the antithesis to segregation, perhaps along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The governor has already introduced sensible arrangements to reduce the chances of confrontation. It is significant that the prisoners to whom Lord Colville spoke drew no distinction between separation and segregation.

Mr. Roy Beggs: My colleagues and I should like to express our sympathy to the relatives of the person most recently murdered in Northern Ireland. We have repeatedly condemned violence, terrorism and murder. The report came about partly as a result of the murder of one of my constituents in Belfast prison, which naturally heightened concern among prisoners and their relatives outside prison for the safety of prisoners.
What progress has been made to date in tracking down those responsible for the bomb and the murder? Does the Secretary of State agree that the safety of prisoners and prison staff remains paramount? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that every effort is made as quickly as possible to improve the conditions under which prisoners have to remain in Belfast prison?

Mr. Brooke: I know that the whole House will wish to join me in agreeing with the sympathy expressed by the hon. Gentleman for the family of his constituent who was killed in the incident concerned.
On the question both of the security of prisoners and of the safety of prison staff, to which the hon. Gentleman


referred, there can be no guarantee of absolute security —as I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
All prison governors take practical and reasonable steps to discharge their duty of care. However, segregation does not guarantee safety; the two prisoners murdered in prison were segregated. Most of the recommendations of the internal security review of Belfast prison have been implemented. I recognise that that mainly concerns prisoners, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it also concerns prison officers.
I referred in my statement to the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into the murder of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That investigation is continuing, and the RUC hopes to bring it to a conclusion.

Mr. Ron Brown: As I understand it, republican terrorist groups get their arms and explosives from the middle east and America. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a quiet word with the Governments concerned, and especially with George Bush, about that matter? Where do the loyalist terrorists get their arms—and, more importantly, what are the Government doing about it?

Mr. Brooke: I would not want to be confrontational towards the hon. Gentleman, but if he wants to make charges about the American Government providing military assistance to anybody within the island of Ireland, it would be better if he presented his evidence privately to me before making such accusations in the House.
The Semtex involved in the episode on which I made my statement today is widely thought to have come in the pre-Eksund consignment from the Libyan Government to the IRA. We should look in that direction for the source of the offence in this instance.

Mr. James Molyneaux: During the urgent considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, would he be prepared to accept any useful suggestion from those of us who come across fairly regular information in the course of our constituency duties?

Mr. Brooke: If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman wishes to be of assistance privately in that way, the Government would be happy to receive such help and advice.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and the House for being late for Foreign Office questions. I assume that it was my lateness that caused you not to see me, rather than the sobriety of my dress this afternoon. The reason for my being late is that the 1.52 pm train from Forest gate to Liverpool street was rather peremptorily cancelled. By way of consolation, a rather satirical member of British Rail's staff gave me a copy of British Rail's passengers charter to read while I was waiting for the next train. I was able to read it in full and there are many questions that I wish to ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be a point for me, I hope.

Mr. Banks: When I arrived at Liverpool street and made my complaint, I was told that if I looked very carefully I would see that the passengers charter is in fact entitled "Passenger's Charter", and that therefore it did not apply to me because I was not the passenger for which it was actually devised.
I want to know whether you, Mr. Speaker, have received any application from the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to give us more details about the passengers charter so that we can know whether it applies to all of us or whether it is just a way for the Tory Government to save money.

Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr.Speaker: In fairness, I shall call the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) first.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a personal point of order. It has been brought to my attention by a journalist who hopes to be covering a general election in the near future that, the last time the House debated capital punishment, I was shown as having voted on both sides of the issue. That appears in the guide for journalists covering the election. I do not suppose that there is much that you, Mr. Speaker, can do about that, but if there is one subject on which it is improbable, to say the least, that I would vote on both sides it is on capital punishment. Ever since I entered the House, I have voted against it. I would not have made such a mistake, and if the record could be corrected, I should be grateful.

Mr. Speaker: That is a proper way in which to deal with such a matter. I hope that we shall have other legitimate points of order.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry requested your permission to make a statement on an important matter? It has come to light that stolen money has been given to an organisation— £400,000 to the Conservative party—from the chairman of Polly Peck. Could it be returned?

Mr. Speaker: There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper about that. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to early-day motion 793. Has the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requested your permission to make a statement to the House about the donation by Mr. Asil Nadir of £440,000 to Conservative party funds?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an early-day motion on that very subject. It is not a matter for me. He can ask about it tomorrow at business questions.

Mr. Hain: With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an early-day motion. He asks for the matter to be debated. I cannot do anything about it now.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), the deputy treasurer of the Conservative party, to allow him to clear his name of the charges that he solicited and received illegal funds from a company based in Cyprus?

Mr. Speaker: That is a similar matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gave the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) notice that he intended to mention him. That would be in the proper traditions of the House.

Interest on Business Debts

Mr. Richard Alexander: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that business debts should carry interest after a period of 28 days.
The Bill is an attempt to crack down on businesses—usually, but not exclusively, large businesses—which drive thousands of other businesses, usually much smaller businesses, into bankruptcy by failing to pay their debts on time.
If passed, the Bill would allow a much freer flow of money for jobs completed and goods supplied. Without it, many firms will continue to crash. Not because of Government policies, not because of high interest rates, not because of difficulties with the banks, but because they cannot get in the money to which they are justly entitled and without which they cannot pay their way and continue in business.
The actual rate of interest and the actual number of days after which interest is to be paid, whether it be 28 or 30, can be decided in Committee. At this stage I simply seek justice and fairness on business debts which underlie the need for the Bill.
The chairman of the National Westminster bank, Lord Alexander—no relation I am afraid—has warned that the unfair practice of paying debts late is hampering Britain's economic recovery. That bank has surveyed business problems and second on the list is late payment of debt. The Bill will give the opportunity to redress that problem.
My Bill is designed not to give easier recourse to the law or to the courts but to achieve a change in business climate. Of course, businesses and their customers can agree between them at the time of contract that interest will be payable if the debt is not settled by a certain time. However, that is easier said than put into practice. Most suppliers are not strong enough to insist on such a condition. They have neither the muscle nor the bargaining power. The Bill will redress that.
Most of us have a Barclaycard, and many have American Express cards. We know that if we do not settle our statements by the end of a stipulated period, interest will be charged in the next statement. That concentrates the mind and brings out the cheque book. In the same way, if a debtor business wanted to take another month or so to settle its debts, it could pay to do so. It is an added cost on that business, not to the innocent supplier.
It is not only Barclaycard and American Express that charge interest on late payments—the Inland Revenue does so as well. The business man, however, has no recourse to interest in respect of his late payers—and they are often the people who cause him to delay his tax payments. The problem is one which mainly affects small businesses, but they are not the only ones to suffer.
Businesses with the largest muscle and biggest bargaining power are usually the culprits, and they can be large or small firms. The dominant customer can choose from a dozen or more suppliers and do exactly as he likes in respect of late payment. The less dominant supplier is in no position to insist on interest at the time of contract. If he does, the business may be placed elsewhere. My Bill addresses the problem created by dominant customers in an economic climate in which business is hard to win in the first place.
Mine is not a new idea. Several attempts have been made in the House to change the law. The Government have hitherto believed that a voluntary code accepted by all would achieve the desired effect without legislation, in the belief that any company that embraced a voluntary code would abide by it. Anyone does not and will not, and no amount of codes will deal with him.
There have been several codes since 1986, but over that period the problem of late payment has demonstrably grown worse. In 1986, a survey by the Forum of Private Business found that all businesses, excluding the very largest, were owed £57,000 million, and they themselves owed £47,000 million. When that exercise was repeated in 1990, companies were owed the horrendous sum of £145,000 million, and themselves owed £75,000 million. Those immense figures account for a huge proportion of this country's gross domestic product.
Last year, there were 47,777 recorded business closures. Dun and Bradstreet say that one of the main causes was slow payment. The whole business structure has a domino effect, so that if one business goes bankrupt, two or three others to which it owes money usually fail in its wake.
Businesses in England and Wales have the worst record in Europe for paying their bills on time. In 1986, the average bill settlement period after an initial 30 days was another 44 days—a total of 74 days before a supplier received payment. The average is now 51 days on top of those 30 days, making a total of 81 days before a supplier is paid, and this is the average.
Surely that position cannot continue. There is a statutory right to interest in all the other EC countries except Greece, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland. It can be no coincidence that, in countries where such a right exists, the average number of days that elapse after the 30-day payment period is as low as 22 in Denmark, and 18 in Germany.
It is probably the kiss of death for any hon. Member to say, "If the Bill is passed, it will bring this country into line with the majority of other EC countries." Nevertheless, I believe that reform will come about—and, for many small companies in particular, but for some quite large ones too, it cannot come soon enough.
I urge my party to include a commitment to such reform in its manifesto for the next election. In the meantime, I commend my Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Sir David Mitchell.

INTEREST ON BUSINESS DEBTS

Mr. Richard Alexander accordingly presented a Bill to provide that business debts should carry interest after a period of 28 days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Order of the House [12th November] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

stages subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on


any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—

(1) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—

(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The Bill carries through the Government's decision to abolish the community charge, and to replace it with a new council tax. Once we had made that decision, as part of the review of local government, we were determined to carry it through as quickly as we could. I am sure that everyone in the House and outside will agree with that intention.

The timetable motion continues the momentum that we have established. We set ourselves the demanding but achieveable target of introducing the council tax on 1 April 1993. The Opposition said that that could not be done, and pressed us to return to a rating system based on the discredited 1973 rateable values; but the progress that has been made through this Bill and in other ways now demonstrated just how wrong the Opposition were.

The first stage was to pass the Bill. We had it ready for introduction at the very start of the present session, and, once the House had accepted its principle on Second Reading, we sought approval for a timetable motion. The House's agreement to that motion ensured that the Bill could be enacted on the fastest possible timetable, which will give local authorities a firm basis on which to plan for the introduction of the council tax in April next year.

Today's timetable motion is appropriate, not least because we have taken further action in parallel with the parliamentary debates in order to ensure that all the necessary parts of the jigsaw will be in place in time.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East): My opposition to the guillotine motion is not based simply on the fact that it perpetuates the poll tax for a further year—it will not be abolished until 1993. My opposition is more specific. I think that we should devote far more time this afternoon to discussing Lords amendment No. 57, which relates to computer evidence.
I am advised by those who helped my constituents David and Eleanor Bullard to take their case all the way to the High Court—it related to computer evidence, and lay behind the introduction of the amendment some days ago—that it is defectively drafted. It merely allows the Government to use computer evidence to prove payment of the poll tax; they cannot prove non-payment. For that to be possible, the amendment would have to use the precise words, relating to negative hearsay, that are contained in the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988. That is why two hours will not be enough. The Minister has not closed the loophole, and if he does not believe me, we will see him in the High Court.

Mr. Portillo: The only way in which two hours may not be enough is if I am interrupted at length in the debate on the timetable motion, thereby preventing us from debating the amendments. I am keen to debate the amendments.
We have drafted the key orders and regulations that local authorities will need to design their computer software and other systems for the new tax; drafts have been placed in the Library. We intend to make the necessary statutory instruments and lay them before Parliament as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
We have taken further action to ensure that computer software will be up and running before April 1993. The Department has sponsored a specification for users for council tax computer systems, and a copy was sent to each billing authority in December.
Preparations are well advanced on every front for the introduction of the council tax in April next year. No one, not even the Opposition, is saying that it cannot be done.
I commend the motion knowing that Parliament has given the Bill full scrutiny. In Committee, it was subject to 88 hours of detailed examination, including lengthy debate of all its important aspects. It was debated for two days on Report. In another place, the Committee stage lasted six full days, followed by a further three days on Report.
Throughout all its parliamentary proceedings, the details of the council tax have been subjected to rigorous examination. Alternatives have been proposed and discussed, but the council tax has stood the test. The principles have emerged with the endorsement of both Houses.
Today's consideration of Lords amendments is not controversial. Where improvements have been suggested in either House, we have listened and, where appropriate, have amended the Bill, although it is worth noting that it has not needed much amendment.
The House will recall that in Committee we introduced additional powers to allow a scheme of relief for disabled people. In the other place, we clarified the information powers of local authorities. Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have responded positively to constructive suggestions. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will recall that I even added my name to one of his Committee amendments about certificates for students.
That constructive approach continued in another place. The majority of the Lords amendments represent the


outcome of that approach. I am glad to be able to say that the Government will urge the House to accept all their Lordships' amendments.
I hope that the Opposition will take a constructive approach today. I am heartened to see that no official Opposition amendments have been tabled seeking changes to the Lords amendments.
The consideration that the Bill has received is a possible model for future parliamentary procedure. There can be no possible reason for suggesting that proceedings this evening should he delayed beyond the time allocated in the motion. The key is to get the Bill on to statute book and to give local authorities the firm base that they need to implement the tax at the earliest practical date—1 April 1993. We can now either debate the motion for an hour or the Bill for nearly two hours. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Bryan Gould: It is now well known and established that the Government have had recourse to the guillotine on more occasions than any of their predecessors. It is perhaps worth establishing a further point: we are not talking about an agreed and planned timetable for legislation—an idea that has sometimes commended itself to some of our more responsible parliamentarians. Not a bit of it. There was a hint in the specious argument advanced by the Leader of the House that this procedure might be a model for other legislation, but that simply is not the case. This is not an agreed and planned procedure designed to produce good legislation. It is being unilaterally and irresponsibly imposed. It is the negation of good government and good legislation.
We began with a bad Bill and, by virtue of successive guillotines, we have at the very least failed to make it better and, in some senses, it could be argued that it has been made worse.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: "They", not "we".

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right: the Government bear the responsibility for that sequence of events.
We now have a two-hour debate in which to debate the very motion that limits debates to two hours and which then, in what is left of the two hours, allows us—magnanimously—to debate the implications of no fewer than 77 Lords amendments. To discuss a guillotine motion and 77 amendments in two hours is not serious government or serious debate. It is almost laughable that the Minister can with a straight face pretend to support the motion on the ground that it guarantees the merits of the legislation. Indeed, the reverse is true.
The Minister argued that the amendments deal with issues that are not controversial. I beg to differ. The matters covered by some of the amendments are matters of the greatest controversy. They are the product of an attempt by the Government to resolve that controversy, but we should at least have the opportunity to debate properly the so-called solutions suggested by the Government.
Let us consider some instances of matters of considerable consequences which are now enshrined in the amendments and which we shall have precious little time to debate in proper form. One such matter is the question of the joint and several liability of the unfortunate people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and who were rightly

singled out originally in schedule I for exemption from liability to pay their own poll tax. We pressed on the Government the illogicality—even in terms of the Bill's own perverted logic—of exempting such unfortunate people from liability for the personal element of their own council tax but then making them potentially jointly and severally liable for the personal element of someone else's tax.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been an important development relating to that point? There should be some provision in the Lords amendments for recovery from Alzheimer's disease because, as my hon. Friend will recall, Mr. Ernest Saunders was discharged because he developed Alzheimer's but made a remarkable recovery. That complicates matters because the legislation needs to be suitably amended.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is barely relevant to the debate but it is certainly the case that, contrary to received medical opinion, great medical advances have been made. I heard that particular person arguing with great clarity and coherence not only that he had been dealt with unfairly and that the procedures were wrong but that he was innocent. He was compos mentis to that degree.
The amendments are shot through with illogicality. The Government have dealt with a particular aspect of the problem, but the Minister has still not acknowledged the illogicality of the exemptions in schedule 1, combined with the joint and several liability provisions in the early clauses.

Mr. Nellist: On the point made by my hon. Friend the. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), it is interesting that Mr. Ernest Saunders was let out early because of the circumstances described, having served one day in prison for every £30,000 that he was alleged to have defrauded and found guilty of having defrauded during the Guinness scandal. However, Mr. Cassidy, a pensioner from Northumberland, was sent to Durham maximum security prison—with no possibility of remission because non-payment of the poll tax is a civil offence—for one day for every 62p that he owes. That was not just a question of a good recovery being made from a tragic disease, but a classic illustration of the old story that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Mr. Gould: That is a powerful point, but I do not propose to be diverted further by it, important though it may be.
The second group of amendments provides examples of the important debates for which we ought to have time. Those amendments concern the obligations imposed on taxpayers to divulge information to the collecting authorities—the Minister of State referred to that matter—and the authorities' plea to be given in turn the statutory authority to maintain what they accurately describe as a council tax register.
The amendments deal with that problem up to a point, but it may be useful for the Minister of State to hear, simply as an illustration of the anxiety that remains, a quotation from a letter written by the Birmingham city council treasurer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett):


The Government is proposing that there will be a statutory obligation to answer questions on liability so that I can, in effect, maintain a 'Council Tax Register'".
Incidentally, it is interesting that the city treasurer immediately sees through the pretence that no register is to be kept. He continues:
In my view, and this is shared by many colleagues throughout the country…this does not go far enough. I would wish to have a statutory right to require people to provide me with information on discount entitlement so that the Property Register contains all the information needed to calculate at the outset the proper Council Tax liability for a dwelling. It is of the utmost importance that local authorities are able to issue bills for Council Tax next year which are as accurate as possible. If we have to rely on people claiming discount status then I can see all sorts of administrative problems because people will think they will get discount automatically when in fact the Government's current proposals require them to claim it.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when we debated the matter on Report, I said that I intended to discuss it with the local authority associations. I did so, and the associations, while calling for the power which is now included in the Bill, did not call for the power that the hon. Gentleman quotes the Birmingham city treasurer as requesting. If the hon. Gentleman found himself in government, would he respond to every individual request made by a city treasurer, or would he tend, as I have done, to base what he put into legislation on what local authority associations said to him formally?

Mr. Gould: For the sake of brevity, I omitted a phrase from my reading of the letter. I shall now read the full sentence:
In my view, and this is shared by many colleagues throughout the country as well as the Local Authority Associations, this does not go far enough.
The city treasurer then went on to make the fuller point. The Minister had better resolve with that gentleman which of them has the right interpretation of the views of the local authority associations. I would lay a small bet that the city treasurer is more in tune with those views than is the Minister of State.
The group of amendments likely to be of greatest concern is that intended to plug the legal loophole concerning the use of computer records which has arisen over recent weeks and months. No one should doubt the enormous problems that that loophole has caused local authorities, and the Opposition believe that it should have been foreseen and acted upon much earlier. As soon as it became clear that magistrates courts, and then the High Court, had ruled to the effect that computer records could not be relied upon, the Government should have acted immediately.
I have repeatedly offered our co-operation for a short Bill, which could have been completed in a single day, to ensure that local authorities collecting the poll tax were not frustrated in that way. Instead, we have the measure in the Lords amendment, which has been long delayed and simply does not deal with some of the legal problems, including problems of retrospection, that local authorities now have to face.
The truth is that the Bill is complex. It began with 117 clauses and 14 schedules. It could hardly have addressed a more difficult and important problem than the replacement of what is probably the most important and most damning single policy mistake made by any Government

in modern times. Yet throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have been forced by Government diktat to treat the legislation with a cavalier disregard for proper debate and proper principles.
The Bill started as a hotch-potch and it ends up in no better condition. The council tax preserves all the worst features of the poll tax. It preserves the unfairness of the exemption for those at the top of the income scale from the liability to pay their fair share. It preserves the whole concept of the head count and, as we have heard from the city treasurer of Birmingham and many others, it preserves the requirement for a register. It also preserves the administrative complexity. It adds to those known problems all the difficulties of a wholly new and untried property tax proceeding on the basis of a Mickey Mouse valuation which is already throwing up huge problems because it has been carried out so unsatisfactorily.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the proceedings on the Bill has been the transformation in the personality and style of the Minister of State who has piloted it through. When we began, we were confronted by a man who was perhaps slightly austere, certainly rather detached and even commendably academic in style. We should no doubt have been put on notice that things were about to change when he changed his hair style to a sort of Heseltinian haystack.
We then found that, instead of the rather attractive, reserved and academic figure, someone came to the Dispatch Box—but for his perfunctory speech, we might have seen another illustration today—whose eyes flashed, whose lips curled, whose nostrils flared and whose voice vibrated with synthetic outrage. He gives all the appearance of having enrolled in a youth training scheme leading to a diploma in the "Michael Heseltine school of Labour bashing".
Clearly the qualifying test is the ability to spout absolute nonsense with utter conviction. I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman will shortly be awarded his diploma. The only point in which we can take comfort is that he shows no sign so far of reaching for the peroxide bottle.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is talking about the Heseltine factor. Has he considered the fact that 25 Victoria street, the well-known headquarters of the person who challenged the previous Prime Minister and who led the way to the change when she was kicked out like a dog in the night, was also the headquarters of that little coup? I passed it the other day. I do not know what will happen to the poll tax or the council tax on that property. It has turned into a slum and there is nobody there any more. It is almost as though it was bought and used for the purpose I have mentioned, which suggests that the Secretary of State for the Environment has a lot of money.
Into what council tax bracket will the property fit? It is a slum-like building with barred gates and rubbish chucked inside. It is now not even fit for someone with a cardboard box. Will it be at the bottom of the range, at the top or somewhere else? One thing is certain. The Secretary of State paid a lot of money for a building to get to the top of the tree. The Minister of State was with him, although that has not served any useful purpose.

Mr. Portillo: I was not.

Mr. Skinner: Well, the Minister is now. They have finished up with the poll tax round their necks when they wanted the top job.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is understandably interested in 25 Victoria street. I do not know what council tax liability will be attracted by that property. What. I can tell my hon. Friend may be even more interesting. The millionaire house of the Secretary of State in Westminster will pay less than £200 in council tax, which will be lower than the council tax paid by the poorest people in virtually every other London borough. That alone tells us something about the fairness or lack of it of the Government's proposals.
We are entitled to draw only one set of conclusions from the whole tawdry performance. The Government are acting so irresponsibly and piling up such obvious problems for themselves in the passage and then administration of the council tax that I and many others conclude that they have literally no intention of ever implementing such a hopelessly confused and ill-prepared measure. If by any chance they win the general election, it is clearly their intention that this ill-digested dog's breakfast will be immediately regurgitated. But that would mean—let us be clear—that, if the council tax or something rather like it was ever properly implemented, there would then have to be a further delay in getting rid of the poll tax. This measure replaces the poll tax, but a new measure would not be in a position to do so by 1 April 1993. The voters should be put on notice that a re-elected Tory Government would certainly give a further lease of life to the poll tax while they worked out a scheme to replace it that would work.
There is only one other interpretation of the Government's irresponsibility: the Government, or at least that part of the Government represented by the Secretary of State for the Environment, realise that the game is up and the general election is lost. They know that there is no prospect of their ever having to implement this ill-prepared legislation. The Bill is their continued effort at a face-saving device, a last desperate throw at pretending that a Government who have wibbled and wobbled over the poll tax have something decisive to say or do about it. The truth is that the Government are still ducking and weaving over the poll tax. First, they tried to put the blame for the poll tax and for this year's high bills on local councils. But that simply has not worked—for a very good reason. The problems in collecting the poll tax are clearly intrinsic to the tax. It is not only the Labour party which says so: the Prime Minister described the poll tax as virtually uncollectable.
Local government has been engulfed in the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of the world. Local authorities have had to issue 11·5 million summonses. Local councils are still chasing at least £1·5 billion-worth of poll tax arrears. The Government have not helped. They have made things worse. They have no one to blame but themselves for the current problems facing local government and, for that matter, poll tax payers.
First, the Government have consistently turned down the urgings of the local authority associations that the Government should at the very least fund an advertising campaign to make it clear to people that they are still obliged to pay the poll tax and will be so obliged for at least another year. That campaign is necessary because of the Prime Minister's glib and unjustified assurance in

October last year that "We have abolished the poll tax." How can people be sure of their obligations when the Prime Minister tells them that the poll tax no longer exists?
Secondly, the Government have kept the poll tax alive when they could have abolished it for the forthcoming financial year. If they had taken up our offer of support for a Bill to replace the poll tax with something along the lines of our fair rates proposals, we could indeed have seen the back of the poll tax by the end of this financial year.
Then the Government refused to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum contribution rule. They have conceded the principle, but they persist in maintaining for the time being the practical problems which even the Audit Commission excoriated when it said that it cost £15 in administrative costs for every £6 net revenue raised. Lastly, the Government have demonstrated amazing complacency about plugging a legal loophole that most students of local government and certainly most local government practitioners saw coming months ago.
We are entitled to conclude that, somehow or other, the Government misled themselves and believed for a time that they had some vested interest in stoking up the collection problems in the hope that they could be turned back on Labour authorities. It is a testimony to the good sense of of local government and of poll tax payers that the vast majority of the people of Britain rightly attribute responsibility for the difficulties to the Government who introduced the wretched tax in the first place.
As we have long suspected, the latest twist is an attempt to delay poll tax bills. The back page of The Times today gives the game away. Despite ministerial denials, it is quite clear that a paper was prepared on the instructions of the Secretary of State to put forward various ways in which poll tax bills might be delayed until beyond a general election. The report in The Times sets out the options considered in the paper. Each has as its objective the delaying of poll tax bills at least until after 9 April.
The Minister of State permits himself the faintest shake of the head. Since he appears—in that careful manner—to disagree with what I have said and with the report in The Times, I invite him to assure the House that those reports are wrong. Will he deny that the Government have considered any proposals which might lead to a delay in issuing poll tax bills? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on, get up."] I suspect that the House and the country will form their judgments as to what has happened.
The truth is that the Tories are running scared. They know that poll tax bills will arrive during the week preceding 9 April and that there will be no more powerful invitation to vote Labour than their arrival. Thirty-eight million people will receive the reminder, in its most direct and potent form, that poll tax lives on and that it is rising, on average, three times faster than the rate of inflation.
No wonder the Government are doing all that they can to divert attention from that certain time bomb, which will blow up their electoral prospects. It will be poetic justice that the arrogance which led them to introduce the poll tax, the incompetence with which they applied it and their dithering attempts to keep it alive will come to judgment on election day.
Today's further disreputable episode will do nothing to avert that deserved judgment, when it is inevitable that the electorate will have its say on this vital and central mistake by a Government who have made so many.

Mr. David Bellotti: The Minister began by saying that there had been a great deal of debate on the Bill. Yet if one asked most people outside the House what the council tax was, they would be unable to answer, because the Government have not explained what it will mean for them. They have not done so because the detail of the Bill will be further bad news for the people.
The reason for the Bill in the first place was purely an attempt by the Government to bail themselves out of the poll tax fiasco in which they had become enmeshed. As a result, they cobbled together a mixture of measures—supposedly a tax on people and on property—which adds up to misery for millions of people.
I suspect that less than 10 per cent. of the people have heard of the council tax. In those circumstances, it is important that, given it has the opportunity, the House should scrutinise every aspect of the Bill. Serious defects in the legislation are still emerging at this late stage.
During 100 hours of discussion, the Bill has not been substantially improved. The only Government concession that I can trace is the decision to exempt people with a disability, by moving them one band lower. As the Minister will know, that change was prompted by me and my hon. Friends in an amendment. Apart from that, it is difficult to see that the original Bill has been much improved and it is still hugely defective.
We need time during the legal process to continue to investigate the results of using computer evidence to establish whether someone has paid the tax. Eleven million people have been summonsed for non-payment and the poll tax legislation has caused a hiatus in our courts, so so it is essential that we tackle that key issue when changing the system of taxation.

Mr. Nellist: I wish to correct something which is raised in these debates time after time. I am the one with all the information on that issue—statistics collated from Home Office computer information in the Library, on a quarterly basis.

Mr. David Blunkett: Oh yes?

Mr. Nellist: If my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) doubts that, we can check it later and go through all the parliamentary questions that I have asked in the past few years.
For the record, there are 11,051,000 summonses in England and Wales, to which must be added 2·75 million sheriff's warrants in Scotland. So 14 million people are being dragged through legal proceedings, not 11 million.

Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for that correction, because it adds to my argument. I have no doubt that it is factually correct, because the hon. Member always checks such figures. If the Government sat back for a moment and thought about the number of people involved in that process, they would surely conclude that they had got something wrong. If they conclude, that they had got the poll tax legislation wrong they would realise that the council tax deserves closer scrutiny.
As the Lords have tabled more than 70 amendments, we certainly ought to have more than a two-hour debate. It is clear from the Government's attitude and from the Minister's opening speech that all they want is a vote in the direction they seek. They could not care less whether the House considers the Bill sensibly.
In Committee, there was considerable debate over joint and several liability and yet the Minister and his hon. Friends did not take on board the arguments. The Lords have tabled an amendment concerning joint and several liability and I think that the Government have today accepted the principle that people with severe mental impairment should not be responsible for another person's council tax. If the Government accept that principle, surely we should now debate whether another range of people ought not to be responsible for someone else's taxes. The question is, should anyone be responsible for someone else's tax? Should we not ensure that that principle is enshrined in future legislation?
There is a sense in which millions of people are responsible for other people's taxes. Millions of people are having to pay extra as a result of non-collection of the poll tax and because the Government introduced a tax which has been unworkable as well as unpopular. The Government did not care when they introduced the poll tax legislation and, in introducing this legislation, they do not care about inflicting the payment for some people's taxes on to other people.
In a short time, the Minister will be disappointed. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) suggested that, within a week or two, the Minister might be looking for a youth training programme. Unfortunately he is not quite young enough to go on one. I am sure that he might find opportunities in employment training, which is for adults. He would need to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who in the last few months has substantially cut the amount of money available for people going on Government training programmes. Those opportunities are reducing fast.
Rather than placing his hopes in an employment training programme after the Government fall, the Minister would do better to tackle the issues seriously, by continuing to debate the Bill and by giving more serious consideration to the alternatives. We shall be able to explain to the public that the Government have continued during this two-hour debate to treat the people in the same way as they have always treated them. They have not considered what people can afford to pay or their ability to pay. They have taken only one thing into account—their desire to pass whatever legislation they wish without any consideration for the people.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Today we have been given a very short time in which to deal with the most unpopular piece of legislation that has ever been brought before the people. That legislation is universally hated. There can be no doubt about that, given that 14 million people in England, Scotland and Wales are now subject to legal proceedings. The vast majority of them have never been dragged before a court before.
In fact, 20 times more people have been brought before the courts because of the poll tax than under the old rates system. Under the old system, about 1·5 million people a year were brought before the courts, but that figure covered not just domestic rates but industrial and commercial ones. Up to 31 December 1991, 11,051,000 people in England and Wales had been brought before the courts and a further 2·75 million people had faced legal proceedings in Scotland. Those 14 million have been taken to court in relation to the domestic poll tax alone.
This week, the oldest person charged with non-payment was brought before the courts. Tudor Rhys Jones, who is 94, was brought before Kensington magistrates on behalf of Hammersmith and Fulham council. He has severe hearing and eyesight problems and he was on the point of being sent to prison, but his case has been adjourned until 7 May because the magistrates are waiting for the passage of the Bill.
I have already asked the Secretary of State what powers are available to magistrates courts to adjourn cases in anticipation of a decision yet to be made by Parliament. Hon. Members are aware that I am neither a solicitor nor a lawyer; my knowledge of the law comes from the headline stuff that I have dealt with in my nine years in the House. I believe that it is strange that Parliament's role to set legislation can be usurped by a lower body, a magistrates court. However, a magistrates court has adjourned a case in anticipation of a decision that Parliament is about to make. Courts have been adjourning cases for some weeks—particularly since my constituents, David and Eleanor Bullard, appeared in the High Court some days ago—while they wait for the Government to make the amendments to the Bill that were accepted in another place.
I believe that the sole role of the court is to apply the law as it now stands and not to wait to apply the law as it wishes it might become in some weeks' time. The case of Mr. Rhys Jones, the 94-year-old who is on the point of being sent to prison, should have been thrown out. The council should have been told to return to the courts afresh once the legislation had been cleared up. The court should not have held the proceedings in abeyance. When I asked how that could come about, I was told by the Home Office that the magistrates courts have general powers to adjourn a case.
Since the particular case in the High Court in February to which I referred, what advice has been given to magistrates' and justices' clerks? I was told by the Home Office that, as a result of the decision on computer evidence on 20 February, it did not believe that there was any need for further guidance. That is not true. I have copies of guidance that has been issued—hardly anyone in the House is aware of it, including those on the Front Benches.
Letters were issued by the Department of the Environment on 31 January and by the Home Office on 4 February. Those letters anticipated the High Court decision on computer evidence and gave advice to clerks, local authorities and magistrates in advance of what this debate might decide.
The letter from the DOE contains misleading advice to councils. Notwithstanding decisions reached in the past 12 months in magistrates courts and by stipendiary magistrates not only in Clerkenwell but in the north, the DOE states that there is no obstacle to authorities proceeding with cases.
The Home Office letter contains advice about what procedures should be followed, which has far more serious implications. Because of the time limit, I shall paraphrase that letter. It gives direct advice to councils and to magistrates clerks to get together to decide on how long to adjourn cases in advance of this debate. I do not know what you think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there must be a conflict of interest in magistrates clerks discussing with one party to an action, the local authority, tactics about the

best way in which to proceed in a case. That tactical discussion is obviously not open to the other party in the dispute, the defence.
We should have far more time today to discuss the Lords amendments, especially No. 57, to which I have tabled a starred amendment. I know that that amendment will not be selected, but I tabled it because I believe that the Lords amendment, as drafted, is seriously defective. We should have more time to debate the technical nature of the amendments.
While Parliament has awaited today's debate, the Home Office, the DOE and the magistrates have been colluding to undermine the authority of Parliament. They have taken decisions in advance of possible parliamentary decisions. Surely that must colour the nature of today's debate.
If the Bill is passed in just over an hour's time, it will not get rid of the poll tax. It will perpetuate it for another 13 months, with all the injustices that flow from it. As I said, the cases of 11,051,000 people in England and Wales have already appeared before the courts and 250,000 of them have turned up in court to argue their case. It is because of their appearance that the problem of hearsay evidence came to light. Lords amendment No. 57 is supposed to address that problem, but it fails to do so.
As of 31 December, 28,325 hours of court time have been taken up by the poll tax and, according to Ministers, that has cost £217 an hour, which is equivalent to £6 million in court time. The vast majority of people who have been dragged before the courts are unable to pay the poll tax. So far, 11,259 means inquiries have been conducted, but no instruction has been given to magistrates to remit, in part or in whole, an outstanding poll tax debt or, as a result of the new legislation, an outstanding council tax debt. I have asked Ministers to issue such an instruction, but the amendments tabled by the Government do not address that issue.
Such an instruction should be given when it is apparent that a person cannot afford to pay his debt. I would prefer such powers of remit to be enacted at the liability order stage or, even better, that local authorities should have the power to write off that debt. Housing committees and housing chairmen have always had the power to write off rent arrears when someone is unable to pay and a similar power should be given to local authorities in respect of the poll tax. That has not happened and we have ended up with court cases by the tens of thousands in which there is no opportunity for a solid legal defence to be put.
Imprisonment for the civil debt of the poll tax is about the only occasion when one can be sent to prison for a maximum of three months without enjoying the right to the presence of a solicitor to ensure that one is dealt with fairly. The duty solicitor scheme does not apply to the poll tax. In July, I met the Lord Chancellor and asked him to change the rules either to make the duty solicitor scheme applicable in such cases or to grant legal aid at least in those cases where people are about to be sent to prison.
Earlier on, we talked about Ernest Saunders, but we could also cite the Maxwells and others who have no problem in getting hold of barristers who can charge £20,000 a day. The Minister will be aware of the solicitors who lobbied in Central hall a few weeks ago and of the strike that is taking place in the south of England because of concerns about legal aid. That strike is in protest against charges of £50 an hour for solicitors in criminal legal aid


work being insufficient. In these civil cases, charges are similar, and people who can afford £50 for a solicitor can afford to pay their poll tax in the first place.
The amendments from the other place will not stop the injustice of people being sent to prison for inability to pay. That is clearly the reason for non-payment in the cases of the 180 people who have so far been sent to prison—I have dealt with the families of those involved in most of the cases. Of those 180, there have been at least 15 pensioners, four people whose only income is disability benefit and at least 35 people whose only income is income support. Had they had solicitors, it is probable that magistrates would have remitted, in part if not in whole, the debts for which they were being charged.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on the fact that in the past few days, we have heard about writs being issued on behalf of these people with money at Lloyd's who were supposed to pay their debts but did not want to. They were gambling at this posh gambling den known as Lloyd's and when the money came in, they took it. When they had to pay out some money, they decided that they were not going to. I have not heard any talk from those on the Government Front Bench about these non-Lloyd's payers who are trying to get out of their responsibilities.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps it would strain your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to use the example of the Caribbeans who had their debts written off two or three weeks ago by the Minister for Overseas Development, or the £14·5 billion-worth of debt written off for privatised companies. However, I do not intend to stray any further down that road, as I do not wish to try your patience.
The Government should give a pledge to bring Scottish and English law into harmony. This involves not only bailiffs and what can or cannot be taken in the form of distress and distraint—we shall debate that when we consider a Lords amendment to the Bill—but imprisonment. Five years ago, the Government, including all those who are at the moment sitting on the Treasury Bench, voted in favour of imprisonment for debt being abolished in Scotland when the House considered the Debtors (Scotland) Bill. Despite repeated demands from Labour Members, not least from me, the Government have never introduced legislation to allow the same to take place in England and Wales and to stop this mediaeval barbarity of using imprisonment for civil debt as a weapon of fear over the poorest sections of the community in England and Wales.
Instead, the Government have introduced regulations to extend the powers that are set out in the Bill from two to six years. It is an admission of failure that the Government do not think that authorities will be able to collect debts within two years. Despite the Minister saying that it is all about the abolition of the poll tax, the Bill allows local authorities to use the barbaric methods of imprisonment, bailiffs, distress and distraint for a further four years on top of the original two years. That should have been amended, but it will not be.
I have two more points to make, and these are on the detail of the amendments, which I feel should be debated at greater length than the guillotine will allow. Some of the

amendments will prescribe the individuals who can act as bailiffs in the collection of poll tax debt. At the moment, there is no restriction on who may act as a bailiff in a poll tax case. Local authorities are not required to employ only certificated bailiffs. Any private citizen can act as a bailiff and there are legions of stories from, among others, the National Consumer Council, about the way in which such bailiffs operate.
For example, a woman's wedding ring valued at £147 was taken in pursuance of debt, and sold for £14 by the bailiffs, who then took their commission out of that money before putting it towards payment of the debt. In another example, a car worth £700 was sold for £70 and again bailiffs took out their commission. There can be no sensible recovery of debt from such methods. They are only a way to engender in the minds of other people the fear that they may be treated in the same way.
The amendments will give the Government power, after the Lord Chancellor has had his review in three months' time, to bring in conditions as to who can and cannot be a bailiff and to prescribe what goods can be taken. On a matter as important as this, we should not be handing the Government a blank cheque. If they cannot bring before the House, at the same time as the Bill is supposed to complete its final changes, the detail of what they wish to implement, the House should not give them the authorisation to continue.
I know that this is slightly outwith the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it will take two sentences to explain. If I brought before the House an Industry Bill that would give a Labour Secretary of State the power to nationalise any company at some point in the future and told Conservative Members that in three months' time I would produce a list of companies that we intended to nationalise, there would be mayhem. They would say, "You can't do that." But that is what they are doing with this Bill. It is enabling legislation that will hand to the Government a blank cheque, just a few days in advance of the calling of a general election.
Computer evidence is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 57. I tabled an amendment on this, which I accept is starred and therefore not formally before the House so I cannot divide the House on it. However, perhaps I can use it to illustrate why I think that the drafting of the amendment is defective. The amendment on the use of computer evidence in courts allows, under the Civil Evidence Act 1968, something that should have been introduced years ago—the use of computer records in magistrates courts.
However, what the amendment does not do but what everything else in that Act has done is give advance notice to the defendant of the document or record that has been brought as part of the case. That is defective, because it means that what can be presented on the day is a record that the defendant and, if he is lucky, his legal adviser cannot check as they could do in any other circumstance at any other court under the provisions of the 1968 Act. We should have more time to debate that, so that others of my hon. Friends can take it up.
In Coventry, as in other places, two-year-olds have been dragged before the courts. We have seen distraught families whose deceased relatives have been summoned before the court because of computer—[Interruption.] It is not funny. I have dealt with those families and I know that it leads to great trauma. I will not mention his name because he is not present in the Chamber, but an hon.


Friend of mine, whose wife died five years ago, has repeatedly received notices, from the computer, asking for her poll tax payment. It is as distressing for him as it is for my constituents. If we had a minimum of seven' days notice before such records could be used in the courts, perhaps summonses would not be issued to two-year-olds and deceased people.
I have a technical point that I wish to put on the record. I gave the Minister some advance notice of it, so perhaps when he is winding up he will have had some advice from his civil servants. I am advised by the barristers for my constituents whose case went to the High Court at the end of February to test the rules on computer evidence that, as drafted, Lords amendment No. 57 will enable local authorities to bring computer records before magistrates courts to prove payment. However, computer records cannot be used in magistrates courts to prove non-payment. To achieve that, the words of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 should have been used, because it raises the question of negative hearsay.
As I have said on more than one occasion, I am not a legal expert. Like many other hon. Members, I take legal advice. However, there is a body of law, not least that concerned with the Walsall magistrates in the past year or so, in which the High Court has ruled that, when there is hearsay evidence, only Parliament is allowed to rule. Magistrates are not allowed to interpret.
I hope that the Bill will fail, because it perpetuates the poll tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rightly said, the council tax is a dog's dinner and is no better. It would perpetuate many of the injustices toward ordinary people.
I warn the Minister, in what is probably the final debate on the Bill before an election is called next week, that if he thinks that his legal problems in courts throughout the country, including the High Court, are over because of the introduction of Lords amendment No. 57, we shall see him back in the High Court in weeks to come.

Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We intend to vote against the timetable motion and it normally takes the House 14 or 15 minutes to divide. Can you advise us on whether that 14 or 15 minutes will be included in the two hours allocated for the debate? If that time will also be lost, does not that add insult to injury by denying us yet another period of time in addition to the two hours, which is already pathetically inadequate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): If the allocation of time motion is approved by the House, I shall be bound by it. It includes the following provisions:
the proceedings … shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
That means that the 15 minutes or whatever time is taken by a Division will be included in the time allocated for debating the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has made another forceful, forthright and immense contribution to the debate. I do not agree with him and seldom do. But the hon. Gentleman was awarded an accolade of Back Bencher of the Year for his activity, assiduity—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 ( Allocation of time to Bills).

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 205.

Division No. 107]
[5.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Farr, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amess, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amos, Alan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkins, Robert
Franks, Cecil


Atkinson, David
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, Sir George


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, Sir John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Curry, David
Janman, Tim


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham Nthfield)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)






Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rost, Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shelton, Sir William


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Walters, Sir Dennis


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas


Raffan, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Sir Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Rossi, Sir Hugh



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bellotti, David


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Benton, Joseph


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Blair, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Blunkett, David


Battle, John
Boyes, Roland


Beckett, Margaret
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Beggs, Roy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)





Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ingram, Adam


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kennedy, Charles


Canavan, Dennis
Kilfoyle, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Carr, Michael
Kumar, Dr. Ashok


Cartwright, John
Lambie, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clelland, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Crowther, Stan
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Darling, Alistair
McKelvey. William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Enright, Derek
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Nellist, Dave


Galbraith, Sam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Hara, Edward


Golding, Mrs Llin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hain, Peter
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooney, Terence


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Doug
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)






Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Snape, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stephen, Nicol
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Gavin
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Trimble, David



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Wallace, James
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Walley, Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [12th November] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above—

(a) Mr Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall

put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—

(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—

(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

MEANING OF "DWELLING"

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 22, leave out from ("which") to line 23 and insert—

("(a) is a composite hereditament for the purposes of Part III of the 1988 Act; and
(b) would still be such a hereditament if paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 66(1) of that Act (domestic property) were omitted,")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 12 to 14 and 16. Lords amendment No. 1 involves privilege.

Mr. Key: In Committee we debated the purpose of clause 3 and the difference between clause 3 of this Bill and the schedule to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991. The matter was similarly debated very fully in Committee in another place. In the course of those debates, the Government made it clear that the intention is to ensure that only properties that include living accommodation should be subject to the council tax. Garages, storage premises, yards, gardens and such like, which under rating were hereditaments in their own right, should not be chargeable dwellings.
Amendment No. 1 puts it beyond doubt that the same should apply to any composite hereditament that does not include living accommodation. The amendments specifically exclude from the definition of a dwelling any composite hereditament which is only a composite by virtue of the fact that it includes a domestic garage, storage premises, yard, garden or other domestic property that is not living accommodation. Amendment No. 2 is consequential.
Composite properties will quite properly be subject to both non-domestic rates and the council tax. Valuation for each will take account only of non-domestic and domestic uses as appropriate and will achieve a fair balance between the two taxes. If the balance of use of a composite changes or, more significantly, it becomes or ceases to be a composite hereditament, its valuation for non-domestic rating may change. The amendments give the potential for a corresponding change in valuation for the council tax. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 43, leave out ("or substitute another definition for")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment limits the Secretary of State's power to change the definition of a dwelling on the face of the Bill by order. The Bill originally permitted the Secretary of

State to substitute or amend the definition. The amendment takes away the power to substitute the definition of dwelling by order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

PERSONS LIABLE TO PAY COUNCIL TAX

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired) and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows—

(a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable
(b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall each be jointly and severally liable.")

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 21, 22 and 24. All the amendments in this group involve privilege.

Mr. Portillo: Lords amendment No. 4, and the amendments grouped with it, are about joint and several liability where one of the liable persons is severely mentally impaired.
This was a matter which we discussed at length in Committee in the House. The Government were extremely concerned that the system should not be unfair. I explained that there were difficulties in trying to legislate for the private financial affairs of households.
I can well understand concern about a severely mentally impaired person being jointly liable for a council tax bill, but, as I explained in Committee, there will be cases where the interest in the property and all the resources will be in the name of the person who is impaired. There are obvious difficulties in providing that the sole liability should fall on the partner with no resources. In practice, it is clear that there would be no question of pursuing a person who was severely mentally impaired, and that in circumstances such as I have described, arrangements would be made for the bill to be paid.
Nonetheless, there continued to be concern. Opposition amendments were moved in another place, and carried. Those amendments were intended to prevent joint and several liability for the council tax from applying to people who are severely mentally impaired. But the effects of the amendments were unclear. Although they removed joint and several liability from the person with the impairment, it was unclear where the liability would fall. Indeed, the Opposition seemed not really to have thought through the way liability should work in these circumstances. However, following very helpful discussions, in which it was recognised that the situation was not straightforward, the Government were able to bring forward the amendments on Third Reading in the House of Lords, where they were accepted by the Opposition.
A particular problem arises in the case of a couple where the partner with the impairment has the sole interest in the property. He or she will continue to be liable, jointly


and severally, with the other spouse or partner, but it would be wrong to provide that a partner who has no interest in the property should nonetheless be solely liable for the council tax on it. We have ensured that no person who is severely mentally impaired can be made liable when there are other liable people in the property, but we do not believe that it is right to impose sole liability where it would not otherwise exist.
I was a little puzzled by what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said when he spoke on the timetable motion. He implied that there remained disagreement between the Government and the Opposition over the issue. First, the Opposition have not tabled an amendment to the Lords amendment. In another place, Baroness Hollis said on behalf of the Opposition:
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord for coming back with amendments which will adequately reflect in drafting terms the intentions of your Lordships' House. We are delighted to support them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 1992; Vol. 536, c. 399.]
I hope that the Opposition in this House will take the same attitude today.

Mr. David Blunkett: I shall be as brief as is necessary for the guillotine resolution to be effective. There is no fundamental disagreement between the Government and the Opposition about the amendment. However, we regret that it was due only to the diligence of Members in another place and their willingness to challenge the Government that the amendment has been introduced to resolve the outstanding problems.
We are aware that there are still outstanding questions that concern housing associations about those who will become liable for bills where there is multiple occupation—for example, those people who are not suffering from Alzheimer's disease but who share a dwelling with a sufferer. There is also the question of the liability of the owner of the property.
We understand the technical difficulties. It will not be long, I hope, before we are in a position to draw on the vast expertise currently available to the Government.

Mr. Bellotti: There have been many discussions about joint and several liability and, at last, the Government have conceded that principle in one minor area. It is a great shame that we cannot persuade them, even at this late stage, to consider the principle even further. With any property-based tax, there is the problem of who is responsible for paying it. The Lords amendment, which the Government are prepared to accept, will at least bring some small comfort to a small number of people. However, I suspect that there will be many disagreements about whether a person will qualify under the amendment.
The last thing that we would want to do with a person who suffers from a mental handicap of any sort would be to subject him and his family to the sort of inquiries that would be necessary to establish whether, under the amendment, that person would qualify not to be jointly and severally liable.
At least the Government have had something of a shock. It is a shame that they did not feel able to consider the rest of the principle. We will not reject the few small crumbs of comfort available, but we remind the Government that property taxes are unfair because they

do not relate either to the ability to pay or to the ability to take the decision to pay. In that regard, the ability to know that a tax is necessary and that it must be paid is perhaps more important that the ability to pay.
We warmly welcome the amendment, although the Minister went far too far when he suggested that the Government were concerned about unfairness. If they had any such concern, the council tax Bill would not be before us and the poll tax legislation would have been repealed a long time ago.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 12, leave out from ("person") to end of line 13 and insert
("as regards whom the following conditions are fulfilled—

(a) he has a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling; and
(b) at least part of the dwelling or, as the case may be, of the part concerned is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest;")

Mr. Key: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that the amendment involves privilege. With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 6, 9, 20 and 23.

Mr. Key: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 redefine "owner" for the purposes of the council tax.
Clause 6 provides for the owner of a dwelling to be liable to pay the council tax where there are no residents. The amendments made in the other place revise the definition of "owner". The new definition is based on a person's interest in the dwelling and covers both freeholders and long leaseholders. It is similar to the definition currently used for the standard community charge, under which the owners of unoccupied property are liable.
Clause 8 contains a power to place liability on the owner of prescribed dwellings instead of the residents. There is also a power to prescribe who should be regarded as the owner in certain cases. The new definition of "owner" may not, however, cover the person on whom it would be appropriate to place liability in all situations. Amendment No. 9 clarifies the position with regard to the definition of "owner". It extends the order-making power to provide for liability to be placed on a prescribed person in particular cases.
Dwellings occupied by Church of England ministers are one such example. We do not believe that those ministers should be liable to pay council tax on dwellings which they occupy in order to perform their duties. We discussed that matter in some detail with the Church authorities and agreed that the Church should be liable. However, the definition of "owner" introduced by amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would not, in all cases, cover the appropriate Church body. Amendment No. 9 allows us, through regulations, to place liability on the Church in the form of the Diocesan Board of Finance. The provision also allows for flexibility should difficult cases arise in the future.
The amendments are necessary to ensure fairness and they will assist in the administration of the council tax. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

Clause 24

ALTERATION OF LISTS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 15, line 8, after ("to") insert
("the whole or any part or').

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 15, 17, 25, 26 and 28.

Mr. Bennett: Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 clarify the position in relation to a relevant transaction in the rare circumstances that there is more than one freehold interest in a dwelling.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 28 also relate to the revaluation of dwellings following a sale, making it clear that the building, engineering and other operations referred to in the definition of "material increase" relate only to the dwelling concerned.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 26 make it clear that a listing officer or assessor may alter the initial valuation band shown on the valuation list if he agrees that it is wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 65

DUTY TO CONSULT RATEPAYERS

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 43, line 34, leave out from ("prescribed") to ("and") in line 35.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 19.

Mr. Bennett: These are technical amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill. Clause 115 provides that prescription under the Bill will be by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That renders unnecessary two references in clause 65(6) to prescription by regulation. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 therefore remove the superfluous words.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special entry.

Clause 87

ALTERATION OF LISTS

Lords amendment: No. 27. in page 59, line 10, after ("payments") insert ("or repayments").

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 87(8)(a) provides for regulations to be made requiring a person to make adjustments to his council tax payments to reflect an alteration to the banding of his dwelling. It is thought that the clause would allow regulations to require payment to be made or to provide for repayment of overpaid amounts. However, the absence of the word "repayments", which appears in the equivalent

English clause—clause 24—may cast doubt on that. The amendment, which is purely technical, would remove any such doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 94

SUBSTITUTED AND REDUCED SETTINGS

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 64, line 20, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert
("Schedule 7 to this Act")

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. The amendment corrects a minor drafting error.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 30, after clause 101, to insert the following new clause

Transitory enforcement provisions for England and Wales

(".—(l) Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act (community charges: enforcement) shall he amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 7 (distress), after sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

(3A) The regulations may include provision that—

(a) no person shall make a distress unless he is an officer of the authority concerned, or he is a person of a prescribed description and any prescribed conditions are fulfilled;
(b) no person making a distress shall seize goods of a prescribed description."

(3) In paragraph 8 (commitment to prison), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for the words "it appears to the authority that no (or insufficient) goods of the debtor can be found" there shall be substituted the words "the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor".
(4) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

Admissibility of evidence

13A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that, in any proceedings before a magistrates' court under any provision included by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) a statement contained in a document of record shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible; and
(b) a certificate which is made with respect to a document of record produced by a computer and purports to be signed by a responsible person shall he admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of his information and belief.

(2) In this paragraph—

'document of record' means a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the authority concerned;
'responsible person' means a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer;
'statement' includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise."

(5) In paragraph 15 (joint and several liability), in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "it appears to the authority concerned that no (or insufficient) goods of that person can be found" there shall be substituted the words "the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the chargeable person".")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 38, at end insert
'who can be made available to the court to testify to the proper and secure operation of the computer, and the accuracy of the record'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 31, 37 and 55 to 57.

Mr. Cohen: The amendment concerns personal privacy, which the Government are guilty of invading. My amendment would ensure that a responsible person would have to be made available to the court to testify to the proper and secure operation of the computer and the accuracy of the record before computer evidence for the council tax could be used in court. That would ensure that evidence from council tax computers was admissible in court only if rules similar to those adopted under sections 68 and 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also applied.
If, at the end of the legal process, the Government intend to imprison poll tax or council tax payers who cannot pay their debts, the evidence that sends them to prison must stand up to cross-examination in court. As a prison sentence might be involved, one would expect the rules of evidence to be analogous to those used by the police when they present evidence that ultimately sends a criminal to prison. That particularly applies to a number of those poll tax payers caught by the 20 per cent. rule who have been sent to prison.
Section 68 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act states that any documentary evidence must be presented in court, supported wherever possible first-hand by a witness. The same should apply here. Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act states:
a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown—

(a) that there arc no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;
(b) that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents."

Various sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act require a witness to be a responsible person who can be cross-examined and sign a certificate that states that in his knowledge the operating conditions of the computer were those outlined in section 69 during the production of the documentary evidence.
If that is appropriate for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which sets out the process used to send other people to prison, it should be appropriate in relation to the council tax and that is the fundamental point of my amendment which should be addressed by the Government.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 also refers to the need to safeguard privacy which is even more relevant under the council tax than the poll tax.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that, first, it has not been selected and, secondly, it is out of their Lordships' hands.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly confused because I have an amendment (a) to both Lords amendment No. 30 and Lords amendment No. 41 and I was not sure which had been selected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with Lords amendment No. 30.

Mr. Cohen: I hope that the Minister will respond to the point I made. The rules under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act should also apply here if, at the end of the day, people are to be sent to prison for civil debt, which is something that I oppose.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I shall be brief, because I have made my points earlier. We are debating the transitional enforcement provisions and the admissibility of evidence. I ask the Minister to reply to the following three points. First, may we have a clear statement on the question of retrospection? According to the letters that I quoted earlier from the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, the taking of cases for judicial review has been almost couched in terms of advice to courts that there would be no problem in proceeding and that judicial reviews could not take place more than three months—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make it clear that we are dealing with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 30. Perhaps when we have disposed of that we can ask the Minister to move Lords amendment No. 30. I am advised that it will be in order for us to discuss them together.

Mr. Nellist: My understanding is that, while the judicial review usually takes place within three months of the question in the lower courts that needs to be examined occurring, it is at the discretion of the higher court. What is the Government's position on that?
Secondly, this group of amendments, particularly No. 30, speaks of regulations being brought in. I understand that, once the Act receives Royal Assent, which I understand is scheduled for tomorrow, the regulations regarding evidence will be tabled and those regarding bailiffs will follow the Lord Chancellor's review. Some time ago I asked whether those regulations had been drafted, and I was told that they had not. Are they ready now, and will they be tabled tomorrow? The Minister should answer that.
Finally, admissibility of evidence in the cases with which I have been involved with the Coventry magistrates, the city council and the hearing in February at the High Court, revolved around the use of computer evidence and the liability order stage. What about the burden of proof and the use of computers for the posting of demands and notices? That is also hearsay evidence as far as the Civil Evidence Act of 1968 is concerned. Is that contained within the amendments and the regulations to be published or is it, as I understand local authority associations have said, a further area which is not covered by the regulations? If so, as I said earlier, we should have had more time to discuss this, because the amendments are defective.

Mr. Blunkett: I sincerely hope that this will be the last formal speech that I make from the Opposition Front


Bench for the foreseeable future. It is a great shame that it has to be on the mess that we face at the moment in terms of non-collection.
I well understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in moving his amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 30. All of us will be mindful of the need to avoid mistakes, as has been referred to this evening, which would cause distress to families where payment had been made or liability did not exist.
However, what we face is the result of what amounts to four years of absolute fiasco. From the passing of the poll tax legislation for England and Wales and some time earlier for Scotland, we have faced one administrative and political nightmare after another, a degree of incompetence never previously foreseen or experienced in Britain.
The position that we face on the inadmissibility of computer records and the correcting of the position is another illustration of that. It would never have occurred and this matter would not be before us if it were not for the implementation of the poll tax with the misery and political and administrative difficulties that that has caused and the considerable legal problems, which have resulted in the discrediting of our legal system to which the poll tax has contributed.
I do not dispute the number of summonses; I do not need to double-count. If they total more than 11 million, it is a fiasco in any terms, and creates a syndrome whereby non-payment or resistance to payment will be with us for some time. Every effort must be made to avoid that happening. I do not suggest that the poll tax is something which the public should have readily warmed to or accepted, but the problem of raising money to spend on essential services is something of which everyone should have cognisance.
Disastrous difficulties have confronted local authorities in terms of local government credibility and the proper delivery of services. The sum outstanding of £1·5 billion has implications for the country's wider economy, the national debt, inflation—in terms of the impact on borrowing—increased future local authority expenditure because of that borrowing, and the regrettable imposition of additional charges to cover the expenditure necessary to maintain local authority services while the poll tax is collected. Those are the crucial issues that we must consider tonight.
Also at issue is the Government's culpability in failing to heed early enough the warnings that they were given and to take action—not against those people who had paid their poll tax and were pursued, or who were not in any way liable but were requested to pay, but those who were genuinely liable. Many of them could afford to meet that liability but chose not to do so, and passed on their bills to someone else.
Last July, Camden council quite properly brought to the attention of the Department of the Environment the inadmissibility of computer records and the dangers that created for the cases that it was pursuing. The Government refused to heed that council's warning, and to take notice of the Rating and Valuation Association conference debate last October. The Government refused to heed also the warnings given last November and December by local authority association technical working groups on the

proposed so-called council tax. The Government refused even to heed the warnings sounded by the court cases that were heard in the new year.
Local authority officers raised the issue again in January, but it was not until 23 January that the Prime Minister's office made it known that action would be taken "shortly". A quarter of an hour of debate remains to consider the Bill, so more than six weeks seems a little longer than "shortly". The Government must unravel the mess that confronts local authorities, which they failed to assist in their efforts to collect the tax and to avoid the imposition of additional charges as a consequence of non-collection.
We can only presume that the Government deliberately took six weeks to introduce this measure—never mind the previous six months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier, one can only conclude that they believed that there was more political mileage in the accumulation of outstanding poll tax and failure to collect than in taking immediate action—hence the response by the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend's proposal more than five weeks ago that both sides of the House should co-operate in passing a one-day Bill to enact the necessary amendments.
Instead, on 30 January, the Secretary of State suggested that the "antics" of the Labour party in delaying the final stages of the Education (Schools) Bill were responsible for the Government's failure to act at that time. Goodness knows what the Secretary of State thinks of the "antics" in another place earlier this week in respect of that deeply flawed and unacceptable legislation. His pronouncement was nonsense and a deplorable excuse.
Consequently, the public will receive higher poll tax bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) pointed out that councils will incur enormous legal costs in addition to those that they have already suffered. Local authorities of every political persuasion will be confronted with the difficulty of picking up the pieces.
The latest statistics show that Labour authorities have brought court actions against 29·47 per cent. of those liable for poll tax, whereas the figure for Conservative authorities is 22·76 per cent. No one wants to see that happen again, and I give those statistics only to show the enormous lengths to which local authorities have gone to collect poll tax.
Haringey, which is reducing its poll tax, issued 149,000 liability orders. The figure for Camden is 110,000. An equally desperate situation exists in Kensington and Chelsea and in Barnet. The Conservative-controlled council in Barnet hoped to pursue 20,000 liability orders in the current calendar year, but has not managed to take action on even one, because of the computer records disaster.
Who is liable for that situation? Who devised the poll tax? Who spent £14 billion introducing it—including the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax? Who would not listen to the Opposition's warnings of what would happen, and of the cries that would come from those who could not pay the tax? Who would not heed the warnings given about its uncollectability? My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham reminded the House of the Prime Minister's words about the "virtual uncollectability" of the poll tax. Who warned the Government that if they continued to impose the poll tax for another year, collection problems would grow much worse? It was Opposition Members.
We gave the Government warning after warning. We made request after request for the Government to take action. We pointed out that non-collection would arise and that those who could not afford to pay would experience pain and be the victims of the poll tax.
We are in the last throes of a Session of which the Conservative party should be deeply ashamed. The Government ought to apologise tonight to all those who paid their poll tax but had unwarranted claims made against them, and to those who, through no fault of their own, have had to pick up the bill for non-collection. We deplore that situation. Those responsible for it are the Conservative Members seated opposite, and those who are not present in the Chamber but who are prepared to go through the Lobby with Ministers on the nod.
The way in which the computer records issue has been handled may be just another example of the Government's complete indifference to the way in which the poll tax has impinged on the lives of ordinary men and women throughout the country. Alternatively, it may represent a deliberate decision to use the last dying cough of the poll tax—before we take office and act, first, to ameliorate the present position and then to abolish it—to gain what it is possible to gain: to acquire a kind of twisted political kudos by trying to blame local authorities for a problem that is of the Government's own making. Local authorities should not be expected to carry records for which they did not ask; the Government have brought about a fiasco.
6 pm
We have requested that the 20 per cent. contribution be abolished to help the process of collection and that immediate action be taken on computer records. We have supported the desire of local authorities for an advertising campaign to ensure that the maximum amount can be collected, in order to minimise borrowing and the misery that it has inflicted. None of our requests has been heeded. It has taken weeks for an amendment to be tabled in the House of Lords—and, because of the delay, court action cannot be organised for many more weeks: the current backlog means that it will be held up until April, May or even later.
The Government should he ashamed of themselves; and the British public will know where to put the blame on 9 April.

Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) mentioned, we have served together for some time; even so, the sheer humbug of the Labour party still takes my breath away.
The problem of computer evidence existed in the same form under the rates, but we did not know about it in those days. The problem has now come to the fore because non-payers—people who are determined to bust the laws of our country—have tried every ploy in the courts in an attempt to break the community charge law, and to defy legislation passed by Parliament. Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors who refused to pay ihe community charge, and urged their constituents not to pay it, played an important part in the attempt to create a culture of non-payment. That was a disgraceful campaign by legislators who asked others not to obey laws passed by the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Brightside, deeply embarrassed —rightly—by his party's dreadful record of complicity in the attempt to undermine Acts passed by Parliament, now

hopes somehow to claim some virtue on the ground of being an advocate of payment. He can claim no such virtue. His party is deeply stained by its efforts to undermine the works of the House, and deeply stained with the sin of non-payment. Indeed, it is worse than that: Labour has led people up and down the country to follow the example that it set, and to build up massive debts. Those people must redeem their debts, for there will be no amnesty; they will be pursued for a maximum of six years.
Meanwhile, Labour Members have quit the scene. They have paid their community charge out of the fat salaries they receive, and they have dumped their constituents: they have left them in the lurch. Theirs is a disgraceful record, and nothing said by the hon. Member for Brightside can begin to mask what has occurred. The Labour party is deeply implicated in the creation of a culture of non-payment.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had been prepared to offer the Government an opportunity to present a "quic:k Bill". Not only did Labour's record lead us to doubt its sincerity; that very evening, Labour Members were involved in disrupting Government business. That was a bogus offer, which could not be taken seriously.
The amendments—apart from Lords amendment No. 57—relate to the process of enforcing the community charge, the non-domestic rate and in future the council tax, and in particular to enforcement by distress and committal. During the passage of the Bill in another place, a number of concerns were expressed about the activities of bailiffs and the amendments were brought forward in response to those concerns. Before describing the amendments, I should draw attention to the recent announcement by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that he is conducting a review of civil enforcement agents, including bailiffs. I am sure that the House will welcome that decision.
In addition to the review, the Government felt that they should take two further steps on the community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax. The amendments propose two regulation-making powers. First, the Secretary of State would be able to prescribe the goods that a bailiff should not be able to distrain. The provision is intended to bring greater clarity to the work of bailiffs, and to ensure that items essential to the charge payer for his domestic and work use are protected from distraint. We propose to consult on the items that should be included in the list, and we are therefore not ready to make the regulations.
Secondly, we propose a regulation-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by description the persons whom local authorities may employ in community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax enforcement work, in addition to their own staff. We do not intend to use that power until the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's review is known—and only then, if we think it appropriate, in the light of full consultation. Again, the regulations are not imminent.
The second part of Lords amendments No. 30, and Lords amendment No. 56, also relate to the activities of bailiffs. It has been argued that there is some ambiguity in the present law as it relates to the position where a bailiff seeking to levy distress fails to gain access to a property and the local authority wishes to institute committal proceedings. The amendment makes it clear that where a bailiff—for whatever reason, including failure to gain access—finds no or insufficient goods on which to levy


distress, the authority may institute committal proceedings. Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 37 ensure that Lords amendments Nos. 55 and 56 will take effect immediately on Royal Assent.

Mr. Nellist: Surely the Minister realises that the committal procedure was originally intended not as a punishment, but to force people to pay up. How can he say that, if the bailiffs have not found sufficient goods for a debt to be met, an authority should proceed immediately to committal?

Mr. Portillo: I did not say that that should take place immediately. It is not for me to say. What I do say is that the fact that a bailiff has been denied entry to a property should not then be used as a block to the next stage—if appropriate—of proceedings to committal. I can make no decision about how those proceedings should be conducted; that is for local authorities and courts to decide.
The third part of Lords amendment No. 30, and Lords amendment No. 57, deal with the admissibility of computer evidence in community charge, non-domestic rates and council tax cases. As the House will be aware, some recent court decisions have thrown doubt on the ability of local authorities to present computer evidence of accounts in applying for liability orders against community charge defaulters. That uncertainty could not be allowed to continue, and, it is essential that local authorities should be able to present evidence of this type if the process of obtaining liability orders is to be manageable both for authorities and for the courts. The purpose of the amendments is to put the position beyond doubt as regards the community charge, the non-domestic rate and, in future, the council tax.
The amendments provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations to do, in essence, two things. First, the regulations will make computer evidence admissible in relevant community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax hearings in the magistrates courts. The regulations that we propose to make as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent will cover hearings on the issue of liability orders, complaints about the levying of distress and committal to prison. Secondly, in presenting computer evidence, the local authority will be required to provide a certificate signed by a person responsible—for instance, the computer manager—stating that the computer that produced the documents in question was in proper working order to carry out the required task.
The computer evidence provisions are designed to make computer-generated documents admissible as evidence. With the documents, before it, it is for the court to weigh the evidence against any provided by the charge payer, and to decide whether it is satisfied that a charge has become payable and has not been paid.
I emphasise to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that it is still for the court to decide on the issue before it. It is still for the court to weigh the computer and other evidence against evidence that may be presented by a defendant and to decide whether the community charge is payable or whether it has been paid.
Amendment (a) would make that provision unworkable. It would require the officer who had signed a certificate to appear in court that on every occasion. I do not believe that that is necessary, but I stress that it is for the court to weigh the evidence.
The hon. Member for Leyton will recognise that, generally, authorities will wish to be represented in court, albeit not necessarily by the officer who signed the certificate.

Mr. Cohen: The essential point that I made in my brief speech was that the rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should apply to the collection of debt. Why is the Minister saying that that basic standard should not apply? Why should the rules be more lax for the poll tax and the future council tax than for other criminal cases?

Mr. Portillo: I have been at pains to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the certificate says that the computer was in good working order and therefore attaches to computer-generated evidence. It is still for the court to weigh whether that evidence is sufficient compared with evidence that may be advanced by a defendant to prove that the community charge was payable but has not been paid. In considering which evidence outweighs the other, the court may wish to question a representative from the authority, but I believe that it should not necessarily be the officer who signs the certificate.

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.

Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 68, 73 and 77 agreed to.— [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Transport and Works Bill

As amended, (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENT OF HARBOURS ACT 1964

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 39, line 3, at end insert—
'(6) In subsection (5), for the words "large-scale map" there shall be substituted the words "map of a scale not less than 1:2500".
(7) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
(5A) Where a harbour revision order includes provision for extinguishing or diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway, there must be annexed to the order a map of a scale not less than 1:2500 on which the path or way concerned, and in the case of a diversion the new path or way, are plainly delineated.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 82 and Nos. 76 to 80.

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments result from our debates in Committee on footpaths and bridleways in harbour areas and from representations made by organisations on behalf of footpath users, especially by the Ramblers Association.
The affect of the amendments is to enable a harbour authority to use orders under the Harbours Act 1964 to stop up and divert a footpath subject to the constraints that normally apply to developers in the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The one thing that we have not provided for in the Bill is consultation with bodies representing the interests of footpath users. We have agreed with the Ramblers Association that, on the comparatively rare occasions when footpaths are affected, we should ensure that it is consulted by administrative means. That assurance will be generally welcomed by all Members of the House and by the Ramblers Association.
The specific issues that the amendments address are, first, the circumstances under which a harbour authority can use the powers under the Harbours Act for stopping up or diverting a public path; secondly, the criteria to be used by the Minister making such an order; and, thirdly, the procedural requirements for the notification and advertisement of any such proposal.

Ms. Joan Walley: The amendments are welcome. I understand that there has been much consultation between the Department and the Ramblers Association. I should like to record our appreciation of the changes that have been made.
Will the Minister be prepared to use his administrative powers to ensure that anybody likely to use paths around harbours and the areas covered is notified directly by an applicant for an order? We have made much progress and a notice will now make it clear which footpaths will be changed, but it would be helpful if the Minister would

assure us that, under amendment No. 78, he will ensure that an applicant directly notifies user groups of changes to footpaths.

Mr. McLoughlin: With the leave of the House, may I say that that is certainly our intention, and we hope to abide by that spirit.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 39, line 10, at end insert—
'(4) In subsection (7), for the words "large-scale map" there shall be substituted the words "map of a scale not less than 1:2500".
(5) After subsection (7) there shall be inserted—
(7A) Where a harbour empowerment order includes provision for extinguishing or diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway, there must be annexed to the order a map of a scale not less than 1:2500 on which the path or way concerned, and in the case of a diversion the new path or way, are plainly delineated.
2A. In section 17 (procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders) after subsection (2) there shall he inserted—
(2A) Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall make a harbour revision or empowerment order which provides for extinguishing a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway unless he is satisfied—

(a) that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or
(b) that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.

(2B) Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall make a harbour revision or empowerment order which provides for diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway unless he is satisfied that the path or way will not be substantially less convenient to the public in consequence of the diversion.
2B. In section 18 (harbour reorganisation schemes) in subsection (3), for the words "large-scale map" there shall he substituted the words "map of a scale not less than 1:2500".'.

No. 76, in page 39, line 25, at end insert—
'3A.—(1) Section 57 (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After the definition of "the Boards" there shall be inserted—
 "bridleway", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 and, in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in Part III of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967;".

(3) After the definition of "fishery harbour" there shall be inserted—
 "footpath", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 and, in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".'.

No. 77, in page 39, line 33, leave out from 'bridleways' to the end of line 41 and insert
'for the purposes of works described in the order or works ancillary to such works'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 40, line 18, at end insert—

'(6) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted—
16A. Imposing or conferring on the authority duties or powers (including powers to make byelaws) for the conservation of the natural beauty of all or any part of the harbour or of any of the fauna, flora or geological or physiographical features in the harbour and all other natural features.".'.

The amendment adds to the objects for whose achievement harbour revision orders may be made under schedule 2 of the Harbours Act 1964.

It is ultra vires for a Minister to insert, for environmental reasons alone, a direction in a harbour order. In other words, the Minister cannot insert any form of protection for environmental features in a harbour because the reasons for which harbours orders can be made do not include such matters.

The amendment attempts to insert such provisions, not least for harbour revision orders. It attempts to amend schedule 2 of the Harbours Order 1964. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds does not believe that the Minister currently has the power of consideration of the environmental assessment to amend the draft order. The Minister should have that power, especially as the term "harbours" will encompass areas of outstanding natural beauty and great diversity of animal and plant life. I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the amendment—I think that he might.

Ms. Walley: We have pursued the issue of conservation duties and have expressed our concern about wildlife and fauna all along. We certainly hope that the amendment will be accepted.
I have here copies of correspondence between me and the Minister and I shall read out a paragraph from one of his letters to me, because it might be helpful:
You also asked for an assurance that the Secretary of State would be able to refuse a harbour revision order on nature conservation grounds. I am happy to give that assurance. It would be perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to decide that the adverse environmental effects of a harbour works were such that the order should not be approved.
Although that reply goes some way towards dealing with issues covered in the amendment, assurances from Secretaries of State and Ministers are not the same as a duty written into the Bill. We share that concern with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
I understand that there is an analogy with other legislation currently under consideration—I am thinking of the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Bill. If that Bill were to reach the statute book, it would impose a duty on various bodies
to have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna
during the discharge of their functions. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can incorporate such a duty into legislation being considered elsewhere, why at this stage have we only assurances, not a duty on the face of the Bill? I hope that the Minister will be able to accept one more concession.

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment is a small but useful provision which makes explicit the possibility of including conservation matters in harbour revision orders as in local Acts. I therefore recommend that the House supports it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 78 in page 40, line 23, at end insert—

'(2A) In paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
(ba) if provision is proposed to be included in the order extinguishing or diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway, the applicant shall—


(i) serve on every local authority for the area in which the path or way is situated a notice stating the effect of the provision, naming a place where a copy of the draft of the proposed order (and of any relevant map accompanying the application for the order) may be seen at all reasonable hours and stating that, if the local authority desire to make to the Secretary of State objection to the inclusion of the provision in the order, they should do so in writing (stating the grounds of their objection) before the expiration of the period of forty-two days from the date on which the notice is served on them;
(ii) cause a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of so much of any path or way as would by virtue of the order cease to be subject to a public right of way;

and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, 'local authority' means, in England and Wales, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a parish or community council and a parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council and, in Scotland, a regional, islands or district council;".'.

No. 79, in page 40, line 48, at end insert—
'(7) In paragraph 14(3), for the words "(b) and (c)" there shall be substituted the words "(b) to (c)".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 60

CERTAIN ENACTMENTS TO CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 29, line 29, leave out '40' and insert '24'.

No. 48, in page 29, line 30, at end insert—
'in section 25, the words from the beginning to "surface of the road" (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order),
in section 25, the words "and shall not be opened" onwards.
sections 26 to 40 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).'.

No. 88, in page 29, line 32, leave out '64' and insert '47'.

No. 89. in page 29, line 33, at end insert—
'section 48.
sections 49 to 64 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order),'. —[Mr. McLaughlin.]

Clause 62

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 30, line 31, after 'Act', insert
except where the context otherwise requires'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 41. line 16, column 3, leave out '40' and insert '24'.

No. 50. in page 41, line 20, column 3. at end insert—


'In section 25, the words from the beginning to "surface of the road" (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).
In section 25, the words "and shall not be opened" onwards.
Sections 26 to 40 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).'.

No. 90, in page 41, line 22, column 3, leave out '64' and insert '47'.

No. 91, in page 41, line 26, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 48.
Sections 49 to 64 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).'.

No. 92, in page 41, line 50, at end insert—
'52 &amp; 53 Viet. c.14. The Town Police Clauses Act 1889.In section 3, the words from "duly licensed" to "Act of Parliament.".'.

No. 93, page 42, line 23, column 3, at end insert—
'In section I3(1)— the definition of "railway of the nature of a tramway";
the definition of "tramcar";
the words "and references to" to "Road Traffic Act 1960".'.

No. 94, in page 42, line 25, at end insert—
'8 &amp; 9 Eliz. 2 c. 16. The Road Traffic Act 1960.In Schedule 17, the entry relating to the Transport Charges &amp;c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.'.

No. 97. in page 43, line 10, column 3, attend insert—
'Section 124 (except as it applies in Scotland).'.

No. 51, in page 43, line 16, at end insert—
'1975 c. 53. The Public Service Vehicles (Arrest of Offenders Act 1975. The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.'.

No. 52, in page 43, line 31, at end insert—

'1980 c. 66. The Highways Act 1980. In section 36(2), at the end of paragraph (c), the word "and".'.

No. 80, in page 44, line 26, column 3, at end insert—
1n section 57(1), the definition of "large-scale".'.

No. 53, in title, line 2, leave out operation or use' and insert 'or operation'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: The speed with which the Bill has just proceeded through the House shows how foolish the Conservative Whips were in failing to move the business motion when the Bill was last under consideration. The only purpose is to speed it through.
We support the Bill. It was improved in Committee, and I am pleased that the Minister has accepted a number of amendments tabled by the Opposition to ensure that in some instances—although not in a satisfactory number —the order-making powers come back to the House through the negative procedure. I am delighted that the Minister saw the good sense in that and that the Bill has been so improved.
The Bill was also improved in Committee as a result of ensuring that the powers to obtain light railway orders in Scotland are not made more complicated as was originally the case. The Minister accepted representations which ensured that light railway-making provisions are the same in England, Wales and Scotland.
The Bill also ensures to some degree—although not entirely satisfactorily—that the waterways provisions are modified. Consultations were undertaken, again as a result of proper consideration in Committee. The Committee proceedings on the Bill were a model of how the Opposition can ensure that there is proper and adequate scrutiny and can produce improvements.
The examination of the Bill has been worth while. It is a relatively minor Bill but it contains a number of important provisions because it replaces the method used previously—the private Bill procedure—which was often lengthy, cumbersome and unfairly expensive for British Rail.
It was an historical quirk that railways were authorised by private Acts of Parliament promoted in the House by outside bodies. All the railways across the country have been so promoted, with the exception of those promoted through orders under the Light Railway Acts which are now repealed by the Bill. However, the vast bulk of railways were constructed under private Bills. The Bill will streamline matters, and rightly so.
We must be cautious about handing powers to Ministers. That was the theme of many of my contributions in Committee and on Second Reading, and it is a theme now. We must be cautious, because a huge


number of powers are handed to Ministers but there is very little opportunity for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. We are reaching the stage when we need to re-examine the accountability of Ministers to the House for the subordinate legislation that they have the power to produce.
The Bill simplifies matters and speeds things up. In a complicated society we need to give Ministers such powers —there is no quibble about that—but the question is how, when controversy arises, it can be focused, on the Floor of the House if necessary. If we as a House provide the Minister with powers not subject to any further parliamentary procedure, that opportunity will be denied to future Members of Parliament. That is wrong. That is why I regret that the powers in clauses 1 and 3 are still not subject to the negative procedure instruments that I proposed
However, the Minister can rest assured that he and his successors—he will have a successor very soon—will be subject to careful scrutiny. Of course, hon. Members now sitting on the Opposition Benches will be sitting on the Government side of the House later next month—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mr. Cryer: I shall continue, despite rude interruptions from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is such a bane that I remember the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) criticising her severely for shouting out so often. That is not something that I do myself, so I hope that the hon. Lady will not keep up her tirade.
The Minister and his successors should be subject to the scrutiny of the House, and I hope that they will be, whether or not they are specifically required to bring an instrument before the House.
I should like the first occasion on which the Bill is used to be a link between the two stations in Bradford. I once introduced an Adjournment debate on the subject, but at the time the then local authority did not seem to have much enthusiasm for such a link. However, since then, land that was apportioned and planned for further retail development in the old Bradford Forster square station has become fallow. The retail development has fallen through, as a result of the enormous, deep and long-lasting recession created by the Government's economic policies.
It would be helpful if the Bill could be used to provide a link between the Bradford interchange and Forster square station. Such a plan has been suggested in Bradford for at least 100 years. It would enable through trains to be operated, rather than there being two termini, with branch lines to Bradford. The present situation causes all sorts of operating difficulties. I imagine that that is exactly the sort of project that could be carried out effectively, cheaply and efficiently under the Bill.
There will be no need for the complicated business of promoting a private Bill, as there would have been under the old system. Such a scheme would hitherto have come under one of the general British Railways Bills which tidied up a number of projects promoted by BR—a siding here, a loop line there, a connecting junction at the other end of the country, and so on. That was all perfectly legitimate, but it was expensive for British Rail.
The project that I have mentioned would be of enormous benefit to the people of Bradford, and it would be the ideal subject for a city grant. A few million pounds would help to create jobs and enable a viaduct to be built, joining the two stations by going round the newly built court house—incidentally, that cost £1 million per court; it was an expensive venture. That would provide through trains for the first time in the history of Bradford, and it would help develop inter-city connections and the railway network in and around Bradford. Clearly, that would be a beneficial effect of the Bill.
The Bill represents an improvement. It places British Rail in a position more squarely comparable with the procedures and costs of promoting road improvements via motorways, bypasses and so on. That is only fair. If there is to be a better deal for railways, if we are serious about moving traffic from roads on to railways, British Rail should not be handicapped, compared with motorways. Road improvements should not have the advantage. The Bill changes things a little in British Rail's favour, while retaining that important degree of accountability.
I want to see British Rail develop in future, and provide a better service. I hope that it will be a cheaper service, so that more people use it, and I hope that this relatively minor Bill will help to reduce the burden of congestion and pollution on the roads.
I believe that it will take a Labour Government to put some real drive behind the policy of better rail facilities, rail use and rail development—in contrast to the lamentable policies that have been pursued by the Government. None the less, because the Bill represents a minor improvement in facilities, I shall vote for it if there is a Division tonight—especially bearing in mind the number of Opposition improvements that have been incorporated in the Bill.
In spite of my reservations about going through the Lobby to vote for a Government Bill, I want to demonstrate that when we see an opportunity, we take it —such opportunities have been very few, I might say to my deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). These have been fallow years; we have had a desert of 13 years of Tory rule, and there has been little that we could support. But I think that my hon. Friend will agree that this is a legitimate occasion to vote for a Government Bill, especially when we bear in mind the part that he played in Committee, helping to organise the manifold improvements in the measure. Voting for the Bill will really be voting for the numerous Labour improvements to it—[Interruption.] In the midst of those turbulent and mischievous comments—

Mr. Peter Snape: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will support the Government after the general election, too?

Mr. Cryer: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that, when I was on the Back Benches between 1974 and 1976, the then Government Chief Whip often used to stand in the entrance to the Lobby and ask me whether I was voting Labour again tonight. But I must also point out to anyone who might be in doubt that, as I voted more often than most hon. Members, I voted more often than most for the Labour Government as well. After the next general election, it will be my pleasure to vote more often than most for the next Labour Government.

Mr. Roger Moate: What a pity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was drawn back into reminiscences of the previous period of Labour Government, during which he was a Minister. At one moment he waxed eloquent, with all his optimistic and unrealistic thoughts about there being another Labour Government. He even said that such a Government would put more money into railways, although he must remember the times when he went into the Lobby to support a Labour Government who cut investments in the railways.
However, I do not wish to remind the hon. Gentleman of such sad circumstances—

Mr. Snape: We have seen the light.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says that the Labour party has seen the light. Well, hope springs eternal, and the hon. Member for Bradford, South was diverted into flights of fantasy. It was a pity, because until then I agreed with everything he said —even his strictures about what the Government Whips did the other evening. They usually behave with great sensitivity and perfect judgment, but on that occasion they misunderstood the bipartisan nature of the proposals and the great investment made by hon. Members from both sides of the House in improving the Bill.
In welcoming the Bill's Third Reading, I should like to place on record our thanks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who was in the Chair until a moment ago, for the tremendous effort that went into the reform of the private Bill procedure. The Bill is very much a reflection of that. We should not be here today had you and your colleagues not made considerable efforts to ensure that the matter was examined.
I should like to record, too, our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), who chaired the Select Committee. A number of us served on that Committee which first sat almost five years ago. It has taken five years to get where we are today.
I also record our tribute to the co-operation that we have received from hon. Members of all parties who have ensured that the Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised. That is as it should be. I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bradford, South when he said that the Bill was a minor piece of legislation. It is of immense significance. A system that has grown up over almost 150 years or perhaps even longer is to be changed by the Bill. It is of tremendous importance and will be of great convenience to Parliament. It will reduce the number of private Bills by 50 per cent. and it may reduce the time taken on private Bills by 75 per cent.
I venture to suggest that the time saving would not have been enough of an argument to persuade the House to accept the proposal if there were not other powerful arguments. One is the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I believe that the Bill will help genuine promoters and will help the construction of railways. That is as it should be. We are also introducing a system that is fairer to petitioners and objectors. Fundamentally, we are making it easier for local objectors to go to local inquiries and to put their case more

effectively and more efficiently. That sense of fairness has driven hon. Members to help to get the Bill on to the statute book.
The Bill is tremendously important. I feel proud, as other hon. Members do, to have taken part in the changes which will ensure that we have a much better and fairer system for dealing with public works. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister who has taken the Bill through with great charm and skill. I also pay tribute to Opposition Members who have been so constructive. I also give rare praise—I say "rare" because it does not happen often—to the civil servants and staff who have created a clever Bill which deals with complex matters. They have engaged in an exercise in open government by being prepared to listen to representations in a way that is not often achieved in our legislative process.
I hope that the legislation will reach the statute book by getting through before the election. Just as importantly, that would ensure that we have all the rules in place so that promoters will know this autumn that they can go through the new procedure and will be in no doubt that they will not have to use the old private Bill procedure instead. I hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading and that this important piece of legislation will reach the statute book.

Mr. Fearn: On the whole, I welcome the Bill which could provide a mechanism through which to build, maintain and operate the public transport system that this country so desperately needs. There are one or two concerns, which came out time and again in Committee, about the power that will be wielded by the Secretary of State. Of special note to me was the fact that "matters of national significance" were not explained. We still do not know the criteria that define such matters. Perhaps that will be taken up in the other place.
I admit to some satisfaction that my concerns about the procedural matters in clause 9, as expressed in my admendment in Committee, have been met halfway by the Government, in tabling amendment No. 85, which was agreed. The conservation bodies must now decide whether they want to pursue the matter further in the other place.
I am especially disappointed that hon. Members who would like the permissible levels of alcohol for drivers to be reduced were unsuccessful in all the attempts to lower the permissible level for train drivers and related personnel. We were cheated out of the amendments tabled on the subject; they were never debated. The issue is important in ensuring the safety of the travelling public and I am sure that their Lordships will have something to say on the matter. I wish the Bill well on its way, especially as I succeeded with amendment No. 98 this evening.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentions the amendments that were not considered on Report. I do not comment on the selection of amendments, which would be improper.
Anyone who reads the debate in Committee and who read the report of the Second Reading debate will expect the Government to use the powers and regulations to drop the drink limit for train drivers.
It is unacceptable that a professional:driver of a train, of a bus, of a coach or of a taxi should be able to take a


bottle of wine, to pour away one glass, to drink the other five and, if the driver were of a reasonable size, be below the criminal limit for driving a train or any other form of transport available to the fare-paying public.
People may argue that it is difficult to have rules for train drivers which are different from the rules for the drivers of trolley buses. What happens if a tram hits a trolley bus? Can one driver be prosecuted at one level and the other driver at another? There are answers to that.
Some may ask why a train driver, a coach driver or a cab driver should be prosecuted at a level that would be all right for an amateur driver. The answer is that people who are paid to exercise their profession should accept levels for crime and for health and safety at work regulations which are different.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the matter. Many people drive professionally for their living, such as salesmen. They professionally use the roads as a means of earning their living. My hon. Friend must explain how we could expand the legislation. There is the possibility of inconsistency, which worries us.

Mr. Bottomley: 1 have no problem at all with inconsistency. We should start with professional paid drivers who are carrying passengers, as trains, trams, trolley buses, coaches and cabs do. We have a definable group. We could then discuss whether heavy goods vehicle drivers are in a similar position because of the weight that they carry. Our misjudgments when we are affected by alcohol have greater consequences then.
The question where the dividing line should come is different from the question of whether in primary legislation we set a limit at which a professional driver is up to five times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision, or to make a mistake. I will not speak at length because the matter would have been more suitable for debate on Report.
There is no justification for the present limit in the Bill. The House of Lords may not change it.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult colleagues in the Department of Employment and to talk with the Health and Safety Commission which has the advantage of being a tripartite body. I ask him to see whether they will set up a steering group, including trade unionists, employers and representatives of the fare-paying public, and to have urgent consultation to see whether such a group will suggest a way in which to reduce the limit for public service professional drivers. If we did that, we should be able to use the powers in the Bill and to see which other powers should be used.
My hon. Friend may say that we are here to talk only about the criminal law and that, under health and safety at work legislation, employers should be able to impose lower limits. I accept that.
I declare that most train drivers would not dream of taking alcohol before driving. One reason why trains are so safe is the professionalism of the staff on the railways, which have a long and worthwhile tradition.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, even if the number of deaths on the roads comes to a record low for the year,

about 4,500 people will still die. If that traffic was on the railways, the number would be only 150. That gives the scale of the change in safety.

Mr. Robert Adley: I will tempt my hon. Friend. Does he agree that, if we wanted simultaneously to reduce deaths on the roads and to make British Rail the most profitable operation in the world, all we should have to do would be to introduce a one-clause Bill to apply the rules for safety and signalling on the roads which we apply on the railways? Is it not because we expect, as my hon. Friend has said, so much higher standards on the railways that we are willing to cast away human lives and to maim hundreds of thousands of people by being so lax about what happens on our roads?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a point in support of the argument which is shared across the House. The amendment, which was not selected on Report, had all-party support. My hon. Friend's point is that there is a good argument for having a lower limit for professional drivers. That is why trains have higher safety standards.
I remember the six people who died and the more than 100 who were injured at Eltham Well Hall about 19 years ago in a crash in which the train driver was well above the limit in the Bill. I do not pretend that a significant number of train drivers take alcohol before driving, and the same applies to the drivers of coaches and cabs. The public deserve an assurance that the criminal law is there to protect them. The Health and Safety Commission could organise consultations in which the unions and other representatives of those involved in such work could come together and give their views. I suspect that their views would be the same as mine, but it is for them to speak for themselves.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the topic was debated extensively in Committee? Reference was made to the accident at Eltham Well Hall. Does he accept that the behaviour of the driver was so uniquely appalling on that occasion that, even if the limit had been set at the lower level that the hon. Gentleman proposes, that behaviour would have been exactly the same and that it was also the result of some supervisory errors? The hon. Gentleman accepts that such behaviour is a rare occurrence.
The Committee felt that it would be invidious for public service vehicle, train or metro drivers—that is the only group to which the Bill refers—to be breathalysed and arrested even though he or she had a lower level of alcohol than a bus driver perhaps involved in exactly the same accident. We want a lower limit for everyone.

Mr. Bottomley: That is helpful. It is good guidance for my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not ask him for a detailed response because I suspect that it would not be different from the response that he gave to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape) that the professional limit should be the same, whether one is on rails or on tyres.
I wish to make a few remarks on the other provisions of the Bill. It is important to ensure that, under the new procedure, the promoters of private legislation for both roads and railways reach the same standard that the Government ought to achieve more often on roads.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the unsatisfactory decisions behind the answers that I


received today about Oxleas wood. I hope that private legislation on roads will not disregard a 400 m cut-and-cover tunnel, which would make a great deal of difference to those historic woods.
I ask the Government to reconsider the decision that they appear to have made to disregard the inspector's report. It seems important that, when an inspector is convinced after a long inquiry, the Government should also be convinced.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has reminded us of the tragedy that took place in his constituency. The whole House will agree that an anomaly is being introduced into the law of this country. It is that the driver of a train or public service vehicle carrying up to 1,000 passengers is subject under the criminal law to only the same law that applies to a person driving alone on the road. I do not understand, and I did not understand in Committee, why the Government could not have said that the limit for drivers of public service vehicles was nil. I do not see who could possibly object to that.

Mr. Snape: Then let me record my objections. My hon. Friend knows full well that a zero limit is unenforceable and impractical.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps zero in precise scientific terms, which is the limit to which my hon. Friend refers, is impractical. But my hon. Friend knows the general drift of what everyone would wish in practical terms. I do not want to go hack into a Committee debate but the point illustrates—with learned Clerks and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at hand—what appeared a rather unusual selection.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has put into words what I would not dare to say. I make it plain that the amendment that was not called and which was supported by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), would have set a limit one quarter of that which applies to drivers on the road. That is virtually indistinguishable from a zero limit. It allows for the practicalities to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred. It is virtually a zero limit.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. But we are dealing with part I of the Bill. Although in some respects part II is consequential to part I, I suggest that it is a series of provisions which are not necessarily all contingent on part I.
With another constituency example, the hon. Member for Eltham has shown us the dangers of transmitting powers to Whitehall and to one Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can turn down the recommendation of a long, thorough public inquiry. The inspector's report —in this case on Oxleas wood—can be disregarded virtually in the twinkling of an eye. Under that provision, unless the matter is of national significance, an inquiry can be disregarded. Important as Oxleas wood is for London, it cannot be regarded as other than a precedent. However, it shows the dangers inherent in the Bill.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or my colleagues will, that throughout the Committee stage and subsequently, I have expressed doubts about the method that has been adopted to get round the difficulty illustrated by Oxleas wood. The method is to hand to Whitehall powers which were formerly in the hands of Members of Parliament and thereby the representatives of the public. Previously, such matters were not simply left to the Government's discretion.
Any Member of this Parliament or the next Parliament, and in particular of the next, who complains about loss of power of the House must examine what happened in respect of the Bill. Of course there were difficulties. Many of the private Bills that came before the House on Second Reading and in Committee should never have been private Bills. Many were contentious Bills which involved matters of public policy and would perhaps have been better dealt with as either hybrid or public Bills. With due respect to the Select Committee's thoroughness, it did not sufficiently look into possible ways of eliminating such Bills as private legislation from the Floor of the House.
As we all know, the result of the private Bill procedure was often that individual Members of Parliament who had good cases, often hacked up by their hon. Friends, either saw to it either that there was a logjam to delay the progress of Bills coming up behind another measure or used the threat of time when speaking on private Members' legislation as a lever for something else. That brought the private Bill procedure into disrepute.
In addition to that, there were genuine anxieties about private Bills, which I shared. A constituent of mine was told that, to progress a petition on the London Underground (Jubilee) Bill, he would have to expend £70,000. That is an enormous and ridiculous figure, but I saw it in writing. People in wigs and gowns take up the time of Members of Parliament in front of expensive counsel. That was criticised in respect of certain matters, including, for example, the Dartford crossing. That should never have happened, but the question that was not asked and certainly was not answered was how those abuses arid difficulties could have been avoided without handing over so much power to an individual Secretary of State and, in effect, officials who have to do a great deal of work.
Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill will erect inside Whitehall a new bureaucracy in the Department of Transport. I have no doubt that the Department is preparing it all now. Unlike the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport has not been primarily involved in public inquiries before.
We all agree that the local inquiry on planning matters has many advantages, but no one has asked whether we should not say that no private Bill can be deposited before the necessary equivalent planning permissions have been acquired through the planning process. If that had required a change of statute to extend the time available, we could have done it in respect of matters on which private Bills were necessary. That was not sufficiently investigated. If we had done that, we would have created a new template and a new gateway into the private Bill procedure, but it would have meant that there was thorough local consideration prior to receipt of a Bill in the House.
All the issues which understandably might deter petitioners could be dealt with at a more local level, but there would also be a secondary and more important


effect. It would mean that details of the required legislation could be discussed and conciliation could take place before the Bill was drafted. In practice, someone takes a chance, produces a Bill which other people think outrageous, and there is a long-drawn-out struggle.
I do not know whether you recall the Ginns and Gutteridge Leicester (Crematorium) Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was debated for either six or 12 hours in the House on Second Reading. I shall tell hon. Members about that Bill if they do not remember it. It authorised a private company to establish a crematorium in the basement of undertaker's premises in the middle of a midlands city. That should never have come to the House as a private Bill, but it took up a lot of our time and added to the disrepute into which this type of private procedure has brought itself. Had planning permission been required before the Bill was submitted I do not believe that such permission would have even been sought, because under existing general law relating to crematoriums such an application would have been prohibited.

Mr. Moate: In fact the Ginns and Gutteridge application went before the Leicester planning authority and was approved. It should not have come here; the hon. Gentleman is right. If someone wished to dispute it, it should have been revoked in the usual way. He is right in principle, but wrong in detail.

Mr. Spearing: I am always open to correction and I am grateful for that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it does not destroy the principle that I was enunciating. I shall not comment on the Leicester planning inquiry into the matter.
Let us hasten on. Many of the problems that we were concerned with in Committee would have been solved if those possibilities had been considered. By granting those powers to the Secretary of State of the day, we are probably storing up a great deal of trouble for ourselves.
Clause 5(3) (a) contains the extraordinary provision that an order may
apply, modify or exclude any provision of an Act of Parliament (or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made under section 1 or, as the case may be, 3
Note the word "relates" in the Bill, rather than "necessary for the completion or. Those are enormous powers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has reminded us, as the Bill stands, unless the matter is of national significance an order will not even be subject to the negative procedure.

Mr. Cryer: I think that my hon. Friend would accept that that is some qualification. I am delighted that he is as concerned as I am about the powers in delegated legislation. The so-called Education Reform Act 1988 contains much wider powers. For instance, there are 18 occasions when the Secretary of State can repeal, modify or amend, as he chooses, primary legislation. Although my hon. Friend is concerned about this Bill, the powers are qualified. In what I might dare to term more major pieces of legislation, the powers have not been so narrowly defined.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what might be regarded by some people as a precedent. He almost underlines my argument, because I

do not think that those powers are necessarily proper in the field of education. However, I suggest that the powers of someone in an education institution or within education are not comparable to the creation of such things as the channel tunnel fast link.
As the Committee agreed, during the next Session of the next Parliament the Secretary of State may well be able to approve the channel tunnel fast link from King's Cross to somewhere in the north downs after an hour and a half's debate—it might be longer but it need not be. That cannot be changed once it is put there, or not without enormous difficulty.
Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between authorising works by planning permission and authorising powers. Powers and works are not the same thing. The powers and obligations of a promoter or someone running a transport system are fundamentally distinct. We are giving powers to undertakers of transport organisations to do all sorts of things, including the creation of byelaws and of their own police forces, in schedule I of the Bill.
No, we are handing too much to the Government, to any Government and to any Secretary of State in this Bill. I am sorry that alternative measures were not considered more thoroughly by the Select Committee.
When you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if a single voice says no, I am sure that you will collect the voices in your particular manner. I shall not divide the House, but I want to put it on the record that I disapprove of the Bill. Its complications and the powers that we give to the executive are too great and time will show that I am correct. I hope that I am wrong, but in view of the way in which the Minister has dealt with the inland waterways —he did not even inform the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council—we do not have a happy precedent for the way in which Secretaries of State may use the powers enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Adley: This is a constructive, unglamorous, uncontroversial and doubtless untelevised piece of legislation, which typifies in its own way many of the things that are wrong with the way in which the media operate. All they ever show is Parliament in aggravated dispute across the Floor of the House two or three times a week, which makes good television. The media rarely show the way in which many of us try to improve and to change legislation with agreement across the Floor of the House, with fundamentally no problem, no hassle and no aggravation.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way that he listened to our representations when I approached him with a colleague from the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We had the full panoply of the Minister's civil servants alongside us and made two recommendations to change the Bill. The Minister proposed the relevant Government amendments in Committee, and it is important to put that on the record.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will not mind my saying that I took advantage of the opportunity to speak on Second Reading and managed to escape from the Committee. When I saw him and the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—to name but three members of the Committee—I thought that my


private discussions with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Selection had been thoroughly worth while. Nothing this evening has caused me to change that view.

Mr. Snape: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will use his influence on my behalf.

Mr. Adley: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, ASLEF. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Snape: By the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. Adley: I am hoping to become a Conservative Member who is made an honorary member of ASLEF. I put on record one of my few unfulfilled political ambitions. Then I am sure that, in spite of the fact that we might be affilitated to different trade unions, we shall work together, as we always have done, to promote what we see as the railway interest. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.
Having listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I cannot help but be struck by the difference between the Labour party's propaganda and the reality. No one would accuse me of not taking an interest in the welfare of railways, and supporting the retention of lines and so forth. However the reality is that this legislation has come from a Conservative Government. In contradistinction, one of their Labour predecessors closed the Waverley route and the Somerset and Dorset line, under the tutelage of the noble Lady, Lady Castle—I am not sure what Barbara Castle is called now, but I think that that is what she should be called legally. She was Minister of Transport when those lines were closed.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport, he achieved something that has never been given its proper recognition—the retention of the Settle to Carlisle railway line. That represented a huge change in policy and reversed a generation of rural railway line closures. They were closed because, judged on purely commercial criteria, they appeared incapable of sustaining themselves. It is worth recording that achievement, which, although it had a minor effect on the main railway lines of British Rail, was an important one.
At some stage after the Conservative Government have been re-elected, as they will be shortly, I hope that we will consider the problem of so-called redundant track. We now properly boast about the number of stations that have been reopened and the number of lines that have been restored to passenger service. That happened only as a result of sheer chance because those lines were not closed and the track-beds sold off. The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the docklands light railway. He will know that that railway would never have been built had it not been for the sheer chance that the so-called redundant track on which much of it runs was not sold off. It was lucky that British Rail did not succeed in following the strictures of successive Governments, who wanted it to sell off such redundant track.
We must recognise that there is some redundant land in British Rail's ownership, but fashions, transport policy and circumstances change. However, if we sell off track, we prevent options for change, if I can use a current military-related phrase, being acted upon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) spoke about drinking while driving a train and about the need for consultation with the trade unions about that problem. When the Government are re-elected, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that there have been substantial personnel changes within the trade union movement. That welcome change is almost entirely due to the legislation which the Government introduced and which was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party. That legislation has meant that, for the first time, the election of the deputy general secretary of ASLEF is subject to the general vote of that union's membership.
It is about time our party made more of an effort to bring trade union representatives back into the discussion process, especially as those in positions of authority have been elected by a genuine process of secret ballots and votes. There is much to discuss about the future shape of the railways, and the fact that there have been no direct links between trade union leaders and Ministers is a waste of talent, experience and ability.
Many of those in the unions have given a lifetime of service to the railways. They believe in them. They have a great deal more experience and knowledge about what might be done to improve services than some of the administrators who have been employed in the past few years. I know that those remarks are out of order, but I hope that we can look forward to further debates on railway policy in the not too distant future.

Ms. Walley: Given what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, it is clear that he is making a claim for honorary presidency, or whatever, of ASLEF.

Mr. Adley: Membership, not presidency.

Ms. Walley: In Committee, I suggested that we needed two days for the Report stage, but everyone looked at me as though I was not serious. However, the fact that it has taken two days, for whatever reasons, shows how much could be said about the Bill.
I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill unduly, but it is important to consider the way in which it has changed. When it was introduced, the Opposition accepted it in principle, but we believed that many changes had to be made to it. Our Whips were wise in their selection for the Committee, because my hon. Friends, together with the Minister, who has been amenable to many of our amendments, have caused the Bill to be altered.
We have tried to be constructive and positive to bring the Bill into the 20th century. In that way our procedures will match the need for changed transport infrastructures. I wish that the Government had the same approach to all other business in the House. Much of our business is conducted in an archaic manner. Many of our practices need to be brought into line with the 20th century—not least in relation to women Members of Parliament. I accept that some progress has been made in that regard, but I know that I am now straying miles from my brief.
Change was important because neither the Department of Transport nor the Department of the Environment understood why it was important that the commercial waterways should meet transport needs. The hon. Member for Christchurch spoke about the need for co-operation and consultation with the trade union movement, but he is


13 years too late. When the Bill was first presented to us, it was not even possible for the Government to have proper consultation with their own statutory bodies. I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss, post haste, the various concerns that have been expressed. We have received many letters from those who care about our canals and inland waterways, and I welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill.
I pay tribute to the work of the rights of way review committee. I appreciate that the changes made to the Bill are not the result of discussions that lasted a few months only—many people behind the scenes have contributed to the changes, which had a long gestation period.
The Minister has promised that adequate consultation will take place. After the election, whether it is on 2 or 9 April, we shall honour that commitment to consultation. It is important to ensure that the necessary regulations are put in place.
We have repeatedly expressed our concerns about environmental assessments. It is still necessary to consider those procedures with a fine-tooth comb. Although some amendments have been accepted tonight, we still need to include proper environmental assessment procedures in the Bill. The speech of hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) proved that that was necessary.
We have sought to ensure that those who have the right to make objections retain the opportunity to do so. That must be counterbalanced by the introduction of necessary timetables, so that, when the order-making procedure is triggered, those who have an interest know when that procedure is due to complete.
We welcome the safety improvements that have been made in respect of railways. The issue of alcohol safety limits will not go away. We feel strongly that those limits should apply across the board. We should have proper consultation about that soon as it is in the interests of public safety.
It might be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Bill will receive its Royal Assent before the general election. I accept that that is out of his control, but we are now in a race against time. We have always supported the Bill in principle, and I believe that we have helped to make it a more constructive one.

Mr. McLoughlin: Tonight will go down in history, and we shall often look back to the Official Report of this debate, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) admitted that he was about to cross the Floor and join the Conservative party. He said that he would be looking forward to sitting on this side of the House after the general election. The only way that he will do that is if he changes parties, and that will depend on him holding his seat—his majority is not all that good. I had to say that, because hon. Members have expressed their views about what may or may not happen in the forthcoming election.
Everybody has accepted that this is an important Bill that makes some important changes to the way in which the railway system is developed. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee, which explored the Bill thoroughly. We debated many amendments, some of which had been tabled by the Government because we were prepared to listen. Some of the debates were long. It will not surprise many to hear that we always failed to convince the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr.

Spearing), no matter how far we took the changes we were prepared to make. I am sorry that we failed to convince him, but on this issue he is a lone voice because most members of the Committee wanted to see progress.
By removing the locus standi, the Bill will expand people's rights because that will enable them to make representations direct to the public inquiry, which is the preferable way to do these things. Normally, the other place is regarded as a revising Chamber, but we can rightly claim that we have already done a good job on the Bill, and not many issues will need revising. Most of the changes to the Bill that were requested have been made. I take it that that is the general view of all hon. Members who would like to see the Bill make progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked about alcohol limits. I know that he welcomes the general thrust of the Bill to cover these issues, because there has been the loophole that people could not be tested for alcohol levels. This was particularly drawn to our attention after the Cannon Street crash, when the coroner wanted the Government to take action. I agree with my hon. Friend that the best rule is for no one to work on the transport system when under the influence of drink. A zero limit is already required in the operators' rule book.
We do not believe that that could provide the basis for a criminal offence. We considered the options carefully and felt that there was an overriding case for consistency with the criminal sanctions in the road traffic legislation. It would be unjust to discriminate against the railwayman, and in the case of a tram the relevant personnel would be on the road. Differing limits would be unjustifiable in those circumstances.
My hon. Friend said that a number of professional people use the roads, including not just those in vehicles carrying the public, but those driving heavy goods vehicles which, as he rightly said, can be lethal weapons if the driver is over the alcohol limit. I know the keen interest with which my hon. Friend has pursued this matter on a number of occasions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If my hon. Friend were to say that he will send the report of this debate to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, and see whether that is the right body to get the views of the unions and others involved, such as passengers, I should regard this part of the debate as satisfactory.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We consulted the commission when we started to draft the Bill, and it responded to the Government's consultation paper, welcoming the drink-drugs provisions which back up the operators' measures. I take my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that the commission will look at this matter. It will also be possible under the Bill, as it is under the road traffic legislation, as he knows, to change those levels by affirmative order. I think that we have the right framework. If the case is made and it is decided at some future stage to change those limits, it will be easier to do so than it has been up to now.
I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee and all the officials who served in preparing the Bill. As has been shown by the debate, the Bill is generally welcomed, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Offshore Safety Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although this is a short Bill, and essentially a technical one, it is nevertheless crucial to the new safety regime that is a follow-up to the important report by Lord Cullen after the Piper Alpha disaster. It should go without saying that the Government have always placed the greatest possible importance on implementing all the measures in the Bill as quickly as possible, and on implementing measures that go beyond the Bill. We said from the outset, and it has been generally recognised and accepted, that the Bill is only one part, although an important part, of the overall follow-up to Lord Cullen's report.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the positive approach taken by all hon. Members at every stage of the Bill. This was reflected on Second Reading and in Committee. Although the Bill was not much amended in Committee, a number of important points were raised during our sittings and I tried to answer them not only then but in correspondence subsequently. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Members who raised such points.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister will recollect that in Committee I raised the question of Cullen's recommendation 57. He kept his word and wrote to me but it would be useful if, either now or in his reply, he were to confirm that the Government are doing everything possible about the difficulties of gas getting into rigs, and particularly into accommodation in the light of Fulmar, about which he knows.

Mr. Forth: When pressed by the hon. Gentleman, I gave him an interim reply. I put it that way because the stage that we have reached is that the operators have been asked about the specific and important point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which was a key safety concern arising from Cullen. We have had replies from all the operators, some of which did not arrive until recently. We are looking carefully through them to assess the extent to which the operators are making a proper response to the Cullen recommendations. The inspectors will now be asked, during their inspections, to follow up responses to see how far they are satisfactorily being implemented. Needless to say, they will want to look particularly at any responses that are less than satisfactory, if that turns out to be the case.
I should stress that, under existing regulations and requirements, the primary responsibility for this important work is that of the employers and operators, and that will be even more true as we produce regulations following on the Bill, as and when it becomes an Act. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, in part thanks to the point that he has raised, that the executive is aware of this matter and has it in hand.
I took the trouble just before the debate—I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise this point again—to satisfy myself yet again that the matter is well in hand. I am satisfied that, as this stage, it is. As and when any further information emerges, I undertake that we will let the hon. Gentleman know of the progress so that we can keep the

maximum pressure on the operators to fulfil their responsibilities following on the recommendations by Lord Cullen. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The Bill has reached this stage having been given relatively swift—by our standards—but proper scrutiny by the hon. Members who have shown interest in it. I hope and believe that the Bill has been the most correct and expeditious way of taking forward Lord Cullen's important recommendations. I am confident that, taken together, the measures in it—ranging from the new regulations that will now be put in place as speedily as possible to the increased penalties and many other activities related to the Bill but not necessarily contained in it—will provide a significantly higher quality of safety in offshore operations.
I hope that hon. Members will agree with that, and I thank all those who have taken part in every stage of the Bill for their positive and co-operative approach. I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I, unusually, place on record my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill? Although there has not been total unanimity on all aspects of it, the Bill has the Opposition's support. As the Minister said, the fact that the matter has been dealt with so quickly in all its parliamentary stages, both here and in another place, is testimony to the importance that the whole House places in the need for the Bill to be translated swiftly into law.
The Bill arose out of a tragedy—the death of the victims of the Piper Alpha fire. One of the sadder features of health and safety legislation is that it often comes in the wake of disaster. To that extent, it may be the only final tribute that we can pay to the families of those who gave their lives on that tragic night. That fact serves to underscore the importance of ensuring that the Bill is enacted as soon a s possible.
One of the issues raised on Second Reading was the problem of the victimisation of people involved in health and safety matters. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that those involved in health and safety become the victims of various forms of blacklisting, and some of them have not been allowed back on board the offshore rigs. The Secretary of State and the Minister drew the attention of the House to a private Bill that was making its way through another place.
I understand that the Offshore Safety (Protection against Victimisation) Bill will receive its Third Reading tomorrow in another place and, all being well—I assume that there will be no attempt to block the Bill by maverick activity on either side of the House—that it will come into force at the same time as the Bill that we are now discussing. It is important to protect those who seek to raise health and safety matters and to give them the feeling that they can do their job and raise matters of importance without fear of losing their jobs. I appreciate the Minister's actions in securing suitable amendments to the Bill to ensure that it can do what the House intends.
As we have already heard, the Bill is part of a more general process. A considerable amount needs to be done by way of secondary legislation and we look forward to the regulations being brought before the House so that we can examine them and ensure that they are adequate to


implement all the Cullen recommendations. The Bill is a preparatory stage for that. It is important that the whole safety regime is introduced as soon as possible and that we have a guarantee that that will be done. To that extent, the passage of the Bill tonight will at least mean that the first part of the implementation of Cullen is well under way.
May I make a couple of points that concern some of my hon. Friends, especially those with constituents involved in the North sea works and those in the geographic proximity of those works? The first concerns the safety vessels. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is particularly interested in that matter and raised it in Committee. It is important that the Minister takes on board our concern that the safety vessels be brought under a health and safety regime that guarantees the safety of those working on them and ensures that they are also an integral part of the safety structure that surrounds the rigs.
Secondly, the Minister is well aware of the Opposition's view on penalties. Although we welcome the increased penalties for which the Bill provides, we are not entirely satisfied that the whole regime for penalties and the system of prosecution is adequate deterrence to those who flout health and safety at work, not just on offshore rigs but on land. We shall return to that issue on future occasions while we are on this side of the Chamber and, after the general election, when we are in a position to do something about it. We shall now expect the court to use those increased penalties to ensure that, where appropriate, those who are sadly not conscious of or are indifferent to the health and safety needs of their employees are deterred.
Although the Bill is small, it is none the less important. The short speeches that have been made tonight do not show that we view the matter with a lack of seriousness. We have had a thorough and useful debate in the Bill's early stages and it is now important that the Bill leaves this place and is translated into practice. Once again, I join the Minister in expressing my appreciation at how the House has handled the measure.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am pleased that the Bill has come to the House for its remaining stages. A couple of weeks ago, I complained to the Leader of the House that he had not mentioned the Bill's remaining stages in his business statement that day, and I impressed on him the importance that many of my constituents place on the Bill. Constituents of mine were killed when that terrible tragedy overtook the Piper Alpha. My concern for the safety of the men out there on the vessels, rigs and platforms predates the Piper Alpha disaster.
The Minister has given me an assurance about the standby vessels by way of a letter dated 27 February. At the risk of causing more work for his officials, I should be grateful if he would send copies of his letter to all Members who served on the Standing Committee, because what he says is important to those of us with constituents on standby vessels. I am sorry to cause extra work, but I am sure that other Committee members would welcome a copy of that letter.
I have been deeply concerned for a long time about the inadequacy of the standby vessels, In Committee, I moved

an amendment which the Minister said was, in essence, unnecessary because clause I covered the safety needs and requirements of the crews of those vessels.
I have never forgotten the evidence given to a fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen 12 or 13 years ago. The inquiry was brought about by the death of the mate of a standby vessel who fell overboard. Despite the fact that he was wearing what was deemed to be suitable gear, his comrades, the crew of the standby vessel, took about 30 minutes to bring him back on board. The reason was the vessel's unsuitability and its near-total lack of manoeuvrability. It was an old side trawler with a high seaboard. The man was in his fifties and, unfortunately, died of hypothermia as he was in the water much too long to survive. I knew of the man and knew some of the vessel's crew. I well remember their deep distress at their failure to bring their colleague back on board while there was still a chance of resuscitating him.
I welcome the Minister's letter. The third paragraph states:
Standby vessels will also be covered by the proposed safety case regulations as these relate to emergency procedures, and these will be subject to audit by HSE Inspectors. HSE has recruited experts in marine safety to advise on these matters.
Lord Cullen commented on the unsuitability of many of the vessels in the fleet at the time. He severely criticised the lack of manoeuvrability of the Silver Pit, the crew of which behaved in an outstandingly heroic way in seeking to rescue the men from Piper Alpha. I think that I am correct in thinking that there is only one custom-built emergency standby vessel operating in the North sea.
What role will the HSE play in the design of such vessels? In the light of what the Minister said about marine safety experts, will the HSE be consulted on the design of such vessels, particularly with regard to their manoeuvrability and their ability to withstand severe weather conditions while remaining on station? I hope that the Minister can answer that question tonight as, according to his letter, the marine safety experts are to be engaged, presumably on a consultancy basis, by the HSE. It is important to get the design of those vessels right.
The penultimate paragraph of the Minister's letter talks of the intention of the Health and Safety to ensure
that the requirements of the code will be enforced rigorously and in accordance with its timetable.
I take that comment to mean that those unsuitable vessels will be phased out. As I said in Committee, some of them are already tied up. Some of them have already been scrapped, but there are still vessels in the North sea. God forbid that there should ever be another Piper Alpha tragedy, but we must ensure—especially those of us with constituents in the business—that, if a disaster overtakes a platform or a rig, the emergency services have the best resources and facilities to ensure the speedy discharge of the men from those platforms.
Presumably, the marine safety experts will seek to be satisfied of the vessels' safety by testing them to see whether they meet the requirements of the code of practice and are in accordance with the timetable. Will disciplined and reasonable tests be carried out on the vessels and crews when training? Emergency evacuation procedures must be a necessary requirement of a training procedure.
I promised not to speak for long, and the Minister has given me some assurances on the standby vessels. I view them as important elements in the safety resources given to the men working on the platforms and rigs. Those men


must be satisfied that, if a terrible tragedy takes place, they have been given the means, through the legislation and the implementation of the Cullen report recommendations, to leave their platforms in a safe and reasonable manner. Standby vessels play an important role. Along with many of my hon. Friends, I shall continue to monitor the performance of those vessels and their crews as they go about their important safety work.
I welcome the Bill, and am glad that it has been brought to the Floor of the House so that it can receive Royal Assent. I believe that the legislation will bring some comfort to my constituents, a goodly number of whom are at work on those platforms and rigs on the continental shelf.

Mr. Frank Doran: As my hon. Friends have said, we welcome the Bill. It is the culmination of the legislative activity that became necessary as a direct consequence of the Piper Alpha tragedy. We have already seen its effects with the publication last week of the Health and Safety Executive consultative documents on safety cases. Progress cannot come quick enough for the Opposition. Some of the gaps in the legislation have already been mentioned by my hon. Friends. The Bill stems directly from the concern for safety that was exposed as a result of the Piper Alpha tragedy.
My interest in offshore safety goes back a wee bit further. I have never forgotten my first experience of offshore safety as a compensation lawyer in the north-east of Scotland. The first case that I had was that of an oil worker who worked on a drilling rig and was doused in acid solution. It was quite clear from the evidence and the witness statements that I took that the operators of the drilling rig had taken a calculation, and had weighed the cost of stopping drilling against the cost of the extra insurance premium. The victim had to wait 12 hours before anyone bothered to call a helicopter to take him back on shore to hospital. I am sure that many people have many such stories and experiences. That man was scarred for life as a direct result of failing to receive prompt and adequate treatment.
That incident occurred in the early days of the oil industry. The Piper Alpha disaster showed us that that attitude had not changed even by the late 1980s, as did the Ocean Odyssey disaster, which followed quickly on the heels of Piper Alpha. In the short space since the days of 1988, we have come a long way. I know from my contact with the oil industry that attitudes have changed dramatically, but we have a long way to go before the change filters through to the coal face.
There are still problems on drilling rigs as the discussions on Second Reading and in Committee showed when we spoke of issues such as victimisation and blacklisting. The Opposition expressed concern about proper protection for health and safety representatives and committee members. These matters need to be dealt with —and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made clear, we intend to remedy them when we are on the Government Benches in a few weeks' time.
It is important to consider the gaps in the Bill, because they point to some of the problem areas in the North sea. There is a serious problem with penalties. In Committee, I made clear my particular concern arising directly out of the Piper Alpha disaster and its close scrutiny by the

Crown Office in Edinburgh. There is a gap between the very serious common law offence of culpable homicide and the statutory offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Bill does not fill that gap, and we have serious concerns about the middle ground.
We are still concerned about the problem of standby vessels, the supply of boats and the lack of a uniform approach. Just last week, I obtained the most up-to-date figures available from the Department of Transport on the ages of the boats. I am told that there are now 176 standby vessels in the North sea, 48 of which are 30 or more years old and 64 more than 25 years old. That is an indictment of the Government. There are still three vessels from the 1930s operating in the North sea—the Ewan, which was constructed in 1936; the Grampian Osprey, which was constructed in 1937; and the Cam Valiant, which was constructed in 1939.
The safety regime for the standby vessels should be part of the overall safety regime in the North sea and subject to the rigour of the scrutiny of the Health and Safety Executive and the regulations that apply to the remainder of the industry. While there is that deficiency, no amount of codes of guidance will fill the gap. That problem needs to be addressed.
There is a failure properly to deal with the role of industrial relations. We welcome the Minister's statement about the Bill currently in the other place, which we hope will manage to squeeze through the legislative programme before the general election. We have a strong view, which underpins the whole ethos of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, that industrial relations are an essential part of the safety system. We cannot have bad industrial relations and good safety—the two do not mix. We want that essential protection in place as part of the statutory regime. Certainly it is one area that needs major improvement.
That said, we welcome the Bill. We are all aware that important lessons have been learnt following the Piper Alpha tragedy. Those lessons are being applied not just in this country but throughout the world. We are well aware that we are a part of the focus of the remainder of the offshore oil industry. It is looking at us carefully and the Bill is an important step forward. I welcome it.

Mr. Forth: Our brief debate has epitomised our proceedings throughout the different stages of the Bill. Anyone reading the record will get a sense of the common purpose that we have all shared in trying to ensure not only that something effective is done, but above all, to ensure that we get the Bill on the statute book—given the constraints that are either real or imaginary, depending on one's point of view. We do not want to take any risks with the Bill, and none has been taken.
As often before, a number of themes have run through the speeches this evening. The first theme, and I can deal with it readily, was the private Member's Bill originating in another place, which has now been amended and which will have its Third Reading tomorrow. All being well, it will come to this House soon thereafter. The Bill was mentioned by many hon. Members—not just Opposition Members, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who has a long-standing interest in the matter. I believe that I can say that the Government have


been able gladly to respond to the points raised both in this House and in other ways, both by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend.
We felt that there was an opportunity to take that Bill in the other place and amend it with the sponsor's agreement. We wish it well in this House. I am glad to give an undertaking that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind. It is a private Member's Bill and will therefore be subject to the vagaries of any such Bill. However, I envisage no reason why it should not find its way quickly through this House before there is any reason why the House would not be able to consider it at any great length. That is something in which we can all share satisfaction.
Several hon. Members mentioned the problem of standby vessels, if I can put it that way. It is a problem of which I am well aware. I said earlier during the passage of the Bill that it was a matter in which I had taken some interest, having realised that it was a vulnerable area in the issues surrounding Piper Alpha and the Cullen report. I think that I can reassure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have the code, which we wanted to put in place rapidly so that we could deal with the problem of standby vessels. As I have said previously, we had to balance the need to have an effective code with the practical reality of getting an acceptable standard of vessel available to operate in the North sea in standby mode.
We have imposed a series of cut-off points, which will tighten the requirement gradually but fairly rapidly, to ensure that the vessels are satisfactory for their purpose. The regulations that will flow from this Bill—which we hope will soon be an Act—will put in statutory form the requirements that currently exist only in that code. I hope that Labour Members will accept that that is the most rapid feasible way to deal with the problem. We are keeping a close eye on it.
The Department of Transport surveyors are working closely with the HSE to oversee the upgrading of the vessels. As I said in Committee, there must be that co-operation. Part of the responsibility rightly lies with the Department of Transport. The HSE is developing its involvement and expertise in this matter, partly by bringing in the experts to whom I referred in my letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. It will he part of that process, and very much in the interests of the operators, to ensure that those designing the vessels

work closely with the HSE and others to ensure that the design of the vessels will enable them to meet the regulations that will by then be in place. They will give effect to the requirements following the Cullen report.
That is part of the process, and it would be odd if the operators, in specifying the vessels, did not want to make absolutely sure that any future vessels met the regulatory requirements in every detail. I am sure that we can say with confidence that that will be the case.
A number of hon. Members mentioned penalties. I am aware that in Committee there was a feeling that we were not going far enough in extending the penalties available. I did not, and still do not, share that view. One of the problems—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) touched on it—is that the House can lay down penalties in many areas of the law, but the judiciary, in its different forms, may or may not choose to exercise them to the full. That problem frustrates us all from time to time in many different areas.
Even now, the average penalty imposed does not come anywhere near the maximum available, never mind those increases that will be available when the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, I feel that I can say with confidence that the considerable increases in available penalties will be a great help. I shall go beyond that: the HSE and its inspectors always have available, for example, prohibition notices which, in effect, can impose a much greater penalty than the subsequent fine on an operator who is not adhering to the existing regulations. Beyond that, were a matter to be referred by a magistrates court, to the Crown court it would attract unlimited penalties. Therefore, I do not share the pessimism of Opposition Members about this. When the measures come into effect, they will prove most effective in dealing with the problems that have been identified.
Yet again, the House has shown itself to be united in its purpose in ensuring that this important Bill is on the statute book in time to be effective and to ensure that we deliver to those working in the most hazardous conditions of the North sea the maximum possible protection under the law. That has been our intention, and it remains the intention of the dedicated people in the Health and Safety Executive and the many others involved in ensuring and guaranteeing that maximum level of safety. I am glad to give whatever support I can to that. Again, I welcome the wide support given to the Bill by all hon. Members and I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 5

FUNCTIONS

8 pm

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I beg to move amendment No. 1 in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) In that subsection, at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
(ca) advise the Secretary of State on arrangements for monitoring the provision of courses of further training for nurses, midwives or health visitors already registered;".'.
The amendment seeks to provide for an overview of the strategic planning of nursing education. Serious concern has been expressed by professional and trade union groups as well as by Opposition Members that the funding for nursing education is to be passed to the regional health authorities without adequate protection for its use and monitoring. We welcome the Government's agreement to ring-fence funds for nursing education, but we are still worried by a lack of long-term assurance on the issue.
The amendment will help the Secretary of State to ensure that the assurances given by the Minister in Committee closely to monitor post-registration as well as pre-registration budgets from the centre are met. In that way, the commitment will be given statutory force, which I am sure the Minister will welcome, so that Government intentions are not misunderstood or deviated from.
The national boards' role as validators of training courses and institutions would be enhanced as, under this amendment, they would be in a position to monitor nursing education developments and ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of any developments or discrepancies that need addressing.
In the absence of statutory ring fencing, which has been rejected by the Government, effective monitoring of nursing education spending by regional health authorities is vital to reassure the professions that their future education is financially secure and strategically planned. Although we do not doubt the professionalism of the national boards in their provision and administration, their outlook could be parochial rather than have the required objective and long-term vision that is crucial to nursing development.
I have had representations on the issue from nursing organisations and unions, as well as from individual nurses, and, like my hon. Friends, I share their concern about the security of long-term nursing education from health authority cuts. For many health authorities, it will be an easy option, when pressed for money for basic nursing and midwifery courses, to consider cutting essential courses such as family planning or neo-natal nursing courses.
It is vital that the number of places is monitored annually; the number of midwife teachers to provide such courses must also be monitored. Without adequate provision for post-basic education for midwives, the standard of midwifery care in Britain will obviously be affected. That will have a knock-on effect for mothers, babies and their families. Our midwifery service is

considered to be the best in the world, and that is the way it must stay. We need to ensure that the conditions are right in order to protect our midwifery services. Unless there is an opportunity for midwives to develop their knowledge through post-registration courses, midwifery will become a less attractive career prospect for many women.
The report of the Select Committee on Health on maternity services, published today, is the result of evidence from professionals and consumers concerned in maternity care and, as such, is likely to receive widespread support. That report, which I welcome, emphasises in its recommendations the importance of women having greater choice in the type of maternity care that they receive, whether at home or in hospital, and says that the majority of them regard midwives as the group best placed to provide the continuity of care through pregnancy and childbirth. A weakened midwifery profession will not be in an optimum position to implement the recommendations. The report also refers to the importance of education in ensuring that the midwifery profession remains highly skilled.
As the Minister for Health pointed out in Committee, she did not think that her Department could adequately provide the necessary monitoring because it was too detached from the workplace. I do not share her doubts about the Department of Health's capacity to monitor effectively if it so desires. However, to cater for her nervousness about whether her Department is capable, the national boards are ideal agents of monitoring. They are in close contact with nursing education through their work of validation and will comprise practising nurses, midwives and health visitors who will have the necessary experience to be able successfully to monitor health authorities and their nursing education provision.
The Minister has already agreed that monitoring post-registration and pre-registration training is important and the amendment simply gives that belief an assurance of statutory force. I commend the amendment to the House.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The amendment is misconceived in seeking to involve the national boards in the arrangements for monitoring post-registration training. We debated this important Bill with a great deal of agreement, and I made it clear that it must be for the NHS, not the national boards, to do its own work force planning and ensure that training provision is adequate for its needs. The role of the boards is different. It will be their job to accredit institutions and to validate courses, to ensure that the standards of professional education of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are met and to collaborate with the UKCC in the provision of improved training methods.
I have also made it clear that we fully recognise the responsibility of the NHS to ensure that nurses, midwives and health visitors can maintain and develop their professional skills at post-registration level. In that context, I am, for example, looking forward to receiving the UKCC's PREPP—post-registration education and practice project—formal proposals and discussing with it the implications for the NHS. I have already had informal discussions with the chairman of the UKCC, Dame Audrey Emerton, and her team, and I hope that we can carry matters further forward.
We also recognise the responsibility of the NHS to ensure that sufficient nurses are trained in specific post-registration skills to enable the changing demands on the service to be met. The hon. Lady is aware of the many specialist areas in which it is fundamental for the delivery of health care to have nurses in sufficient numbers with those particular post-registration skills. I refer to the large groups of the district nurses, health visitors, community psychiatric nurses and to specialist areas such as burns, plastic surgery, renal surgery, paediatric intensive care, neo-natal intensive care, accident and emergency and theatre nursing.
There have been occasions when we have decided from the centre that it is necessary to ring-fence money particularly to ensure the development of a particular specialty. For example, a former Secretary of State ring-fenced £3 million particularly for the training of high-tech nurses because we are only too well aware that having a sufficient supply of properly qualified staff determines our ability to maintain momentum and provide high quality care. We are making special arrangements in that regard, and although the amendment is misguided in seeking to give responsibility to national boards, that is not to say that monitoring training is unimportant.
We told regional health authorities in England that post-registration education and training, which is designed to provide specific professional skills, should for the time being be funded from a separate and protected regional budget, managed in a similar way to that for pre-registration training. Budgets will be rolled forward from year to year in the ordinary way, and it will be open to regions to vary them in the light of changing work force demands. Any such variation should, however, be open and transparent.
We are ensuring also that both pre-registration and post-registration budgets are closely monitored. I said in Committee that we are still working on the precise mechanics, and we shall hold early discussions with the service. I want to be certain that the arrangements that we put in place are consistent with the new approach to planning and commissioning training for NHS non-medical staff generally that will be introduced on the basis of the principles set out in 1989, in working paper No. 10. Many health service staff will be equally concerned with those arrangements.
I remind the House that, although we made it clear that specific arrangements for post-registration training will be subject to review in the light of experience, current arrangements will continue as long as necessary. We have no plans for changing them in the foreseeable future.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) referred to the Select Committee report on maternity services that was published today. As she knows, there has been a 23 per cent. increase in midwives since 1979, which is of great significance. The report reveals that the pendulum has swung back to recognition of that which the hon. Lady rightly identified as a major strength of our maternity services. It is hard to identify any other health service in the world in which the qualified midwife plays such a significant role. Midwives, like nurses and health visitors, have much to gain from the Bill.
It would be inappropriate to accept amendment No. 1 because, clearly, mechanisms are in hand. It is in the

interests of us all—whether as Ministers, NHS managers, or members of the nursing profession—to ensure that training is properly monitored and developed.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Heal: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
'(4A) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
(1A) In approving an institution under subsection (1) above, National Boards shall pay special regard to the suitability of library facilities available to students of that institution.".'.
The amendment seeks to highlight the rapidly deteriorating library facilities for nurses engaged in pre-registration and post-registration training and the inability of library services to provide adequate facilities for Project 2000. In drawing attention to that worrying situation, I emphasise the specific need for library facilities to become a significant factor in the national boards' course validation process.
Project 2000 is an important development in nursing education, in providing a modern nursing profession prepared to meet the new challenges of future medicine and patient care. It has, however, resulted in students adopting different learning methods, as well as the implementation of a broader-based curriculum encompassing areas previously given less emphasis—such as ethics, philosophy, sociology, psychology and environment. Students also undertake much more academically based work involving increased use of library facilities.
Project 2000 threatens to be derailed because library provision has been virtually ignored. The switch to new training programmes revealed the haphazard approach taken by nursing schools and colleges to ensuring that their library facilities can meet the increased demand that those changes necessitate.
It is difficult and unproductive specifically to apportion blame, because nursing colleges are under pressure to supply library services that they are ill equipped to provide. The national boards make no requirement to ensure that a validated institution has the necessary back-up facilities. It is apparent that the knock-on effects of Project 2000 were not adequately appreciated and that the library base was already low.
8.15 pm
Library funding must be planned to take account of long-term needs. Last year, the Government made one-off, stop-gap payments to some libraries, but they were inadequate to ensure continuous high-level payments and did not meet the most serious problem facing libraries—that of providing qualified staff. There is no planned approach to library provision. Some libraries are excellent, well staffed and well stocked, but many are staffed and managed by clerks who are not appropriately trained in library administration.
The Nursing Times recently highlighted the problems of a patchy library service. It cited a survey of nursing and midwifery colleges in one region, where disparities between libraries show large differences in the ratio of pupils to staff and books. That magazine's informative feature on nursing libraries highlighted other evidence of a patchwork service that is struggling to cater for the needs of the profession.
Wrexham college of nursing is linked to Bangor university, which is 70 miles away, but its library facilities


are inadequate. Students must travel to Bangor for books which involves a round trip of 140 miles. That is a ludicrous way to educate our nurses. The absence of on-site facilities for students is a huge waste of time and resources, and the existing arrangement places on individual students difficulties additional to those that they face in managing their studies and meeting their responsibilities and obligations.
Shropshire and Staffordshire college of nursing and midwifery in my own region is linked with Wolverhampton polytechnic, which takes students from Shrewsbury, Stafford, and Telford, who must travel 40, 25 and 12 miles respectively to obtain the books that they need. The success of Project 2000 is jeopardised by that situation, and it is important that libraries are a key factor in course validation.
If our nurses are to be trained to the high standards to which we are accustomed. Project 2000 courses must be able to offer the proper materials. Course curriculums are designed to expand and consolidate nurse training, but there is little point to them if students cannot have access to the material that they need to achieve the excellent standards that we take for granted.
Students' hard work is being thwarted by a lack of research and learning material. A leader in the Nursing Times of 12 February comments:
Libraries are a cornerstone of any education system and the need for good libraries has never been greater.
Amendment No. 2 acknowledges an obvious but often neglected fact, and provides the impetus for ensuring that libraries have the appropriate resources and materials to support their institutions' training courses. It aims at making sure that funding is not diverted from libraries at times of cuts, and that libraries complement courses rather than act as an optional extra.
The Royal College of Nursing states:
quality nursing requires quality libraries, supported by professional library staff, to ensure good patient care.
That is the ideal maxim by which we ought to assess our nursing education, and one which national boards should observe when validating courses. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Although I have considerable sympathy with the concern reflected in the amendment, I hope that I can persuade the House that it is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) has raised some important points, and I shall ensure that the appropriate national boards are made aware of them—particularly the point about the college in Wales.
As I have said, the future role of the national boards will be to accredit institutions, to validate courses to ensure that the UKCC standards of professional education are met and to collaborate with the UKCC in the promotion of improved training methods. In the process of the boards' accreditation of institutions, those institutions are already expected to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the boards that they have a level of education resources sufficient to support their programme. That, of course, includes library resources, and takes into account the extent and range of publications and of librarian support for the students, particularly where multiple sites are being used. Obviously, when—as with project 2000—there is a link with institutions of higher education, the boards take into account the library facilities available in those institutions as well.
After all, £207 million has already been allocated to project 2000. I had the pleasure of visiting the college in Wolverhampton that serves the hon. Lady's constituency, for an inauguration. It is important for nurses, and student nurses, to be able to benefit both from the caring, hands-on work experience provided by the training, and from the classroom-based side, for which library facilities are needed.
As I undertand it, there has never been an occasion when a board has refused validation of a course because of unsuitable library facilities, although on occasion boards have made recommendations about the improvement of facilities. That shows not only the high standard that prevails, but the thoroughness with which the boards undertake their task. I have no doubt that, should they feel that the library facilities are not satisfactory, this is a step that the boards would not hesitate to take.
There has been considerable investment in recent years in the provision, maintenance and improvement of library facilities. For example, regional health authorities were allocated the substantial sum of £5 million in 1991–92, as part of project 2000 funding, specifically to enable them to meet the effects of pay and price increases, bursary increases and other locally identified needs related to the implementation of project 2000, such as—this was made explicit—library additions. As a follow-up exercise, the English national board is currently monitoring how much of this funding was spent on libraries. That is relevant to the hon. Lady's speech.
I mentioned in Committee last month the generous donation from the General Nursing Council Trust in this respect. The sum of £1,000 per college—£2,000 in the case of larger colleges—has been allocated by the trust, through the English national board, with the express purpose of improving library facilities. Last, but by no means least, the English national board has given £60,000 this financial year to four regions, to enable them to improve their library resources.
All that goes to show how seriously both we and the boards take the provision of library facilities. There is no question but that "special regard" will continue to be paid to them, as part of the process of approval of training institutions. They are, however, part of a much larger whole, and I think that it would be invidious and perhaps unnecessary to single out this one aspect in the way that the amendment suggests. The boards need to satisfy themselves not only that library facilities exist, but that there are adequate clinical placements and that the teaching is of a proper standard. They must deal with a range of other issues. They are faced with the same old difficulty: once one issue has been identified, others of equal validity may be called into question. As I have said, however, substantial investment has been made in library facilities.
I recognise the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, and I shall ensure that the relevant national boards are aware of it. I hope, however, that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Lady will not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. Members will recall that the main purpose of this important Bill—in brief—is to change the constitution and functions of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting —the five statutory bodies set up under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
The Bill changes the constitution of the central council from a body the majority of whose members are nominated by the national boards to one the majority of whose members are elected by the professions to which they are responsible. It also changes the constitution of the four national boards from one of elected to one of appointed bodies. At the same time, it takes away the role of the national boards in managing and financing the provision of nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training.
In line with the principles of the NHS reforms, that function would be devolved to health authorities, except in Northern Ireland, where existing arrangements will continue to apply. It also centralises all professional-conduct investigations at the council, avoiding duplication of effort, rationalising an important function and removing some of the delays that prove so grievous for those involved.

Mr. O'Brien: On Second Reading, I drew attention to the problems that affect some state-registered nurses who wish to gain further qualifications under Project 2000, and are having great difficulty in obtaining co-operation and support from the training colleges. I refer in particular to St. James's training college in Leeds. Will the Minister explain why my constituents who want to train under Project 2000 are not receiving the co-operation to which they are entitled?

Mrs. Bottomley: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for his difficulty in getting the precise terms right. On Second Reading, we had some discussion about the exact status of those involved. I think that the hon. Gentleman has now raised the case not of state-registered nurses, but of state-enrolled nurses who wish to move on to a Project 2000 course.
An enrolled nurse already has some qualifications. The way forward for such a nurse is to join a conversion course, which will move her on to full registered-nurse status. We discussed the point at length in Committee, and I feel that it has considerable validity. I can give the hon. Gentleman the encouraging news that the number of conversion courses increased from six in 1985 to 225 in March 1991.
It was a condition of the establishment of a project 2000 course that the needs of enrolled nurses should be recognised. We feel, however, that the right approach for someone who is already an enrolled nurse is not to go back to the beginning and embark on a Project 2000 course—which would represent considerable duplication—but to consider a conversion course. In some circumstances, a Project 2000 course has accepted an enrolled nurse, but we would not advocate it.
I know that nurses will welcome the Bill. It follows a series of measures that the Government have introduced to improve nurses' circumstances. The establishment of the

review body in 1983 was an important step forward, and the implementation of its recommendations in all its reports this year means that all nurses will gain a 5·8 per cent. pay uplift. A new grading structure has been established so that a long-term career in nursing is more rewarding. The working week has been reduced from 40 to 37·5 hours without loss of pay. In addition, Project 2000 has been introduced—a subject with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) may wish to deal.
That series of important measures recognises and improves the status of nursing and makes it a more rewarding career. That is evidenced by the fact that the length of time spent in nursing, as I told the House on Second Reading, has now doubled. A nurse used to spend an average of seven years in the service, but now spends 14 years. The Bill, which reorganises training and registration, will be a further development for nurses.
The Bill has been discussed extensively and it is fair to say that the speed with which it has passed through its stages shows the good will that all sides feel for it, and the general recognition of the value of its sensible and worthwhile proposals. We had an enjoyable Committee stage, which is not always the case, and there was considerable agreement on a number of subjects.
We have consulted the statutory bodies at all stages and have not only listened to everything that the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions have said to us but have acted, in so far as it has been possible, in full accordance with their wishes. We had an extensive debate in Committee on the role and functions of the reconstituted central council and national boards and, in particular, on the professions' expectations of them.
It may be helpful to refer briefly to the report of the Select Committee on Health on maternity services, especially to its implications for the regulation and training of midwives. We shall carefully study the Committee's recommendations about midwifery education and will deal with them in our formal response, but I am sure that the statutory bodies will take careful note of what the Committee has said.
I reiterate the Government's commitment to maintaining the unique and separate nature of the midwifery profession. Midwifery shares, and will continue to share, a common regulatory structure with nursing and health visiting, but its special position will continue to be recognised within that structure, as it has been since 1902. At UKCC level, the powers and responsibilities of the midwifery committee will remain as they are now.
In earlier debates, we discussed the wish of some midwives to change the relationship between the council and midwifery committee by widening the scope of matters on which the council is required to consult the committee and by making it more difficult for the council to reject any of the committee's recommendations. But it is our firm conviction, shared by the statutory bodies, that the current position, whereby the council is required to consult its midwifery committee on midwifery matters, does not restrict its powers and works well. As I said in Committee, I very much hope that future relations between the council and committee will continue to be based, as they have been, on full consultation and constructive dialogue rather than statutory prescription.
We have given a commitment that membership of each national board will include, either as an executive or non-executive member, a registered nurse, a registered health visitor and a practising midwife. We have also


formally acknowledged that the boards will need to continue to have special concern for midwifery. That is why we moved an amendment in another place to incorporate the wording of what is now clause 5(5), which requires the boards, in discharging their functions, to take account of differences in considerations applying to the different professions.
I understand that the English national board has recently reaffirmed its commitment to the principle that midwifery education and practice should be determined, validated and monitored by the midwifery profession. That will offer considerable reassurance to those who have been slightly concerned about difficulties that have emerged in recent months. I have no reason to believe that the reconstituted statutory bodies will wish to depart from that principle, although it will be for them to devise detailed arrangements for putting that into practice.
Concern has been expressed about the need for some form of health consumer representation on the reconstituted central council—a point that was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. We accept that it is clearly more important than ever that the wider public interest in the regulation of the professions should be adequately reflected in the appointed membership. In Committee, I took pains to assure the professions that, in considering his appointments to the central council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would wish to take account of the need to reflect the interests of health service consumers and would take wide soundings about the appropriate individuals who could make that special contribution to the council.
I have already mentioned the Government's position on the funding of nursing and midwifery education and training, especially post-qualification education and training. We are committed to ensuring that adequate resources are made available for nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training. We estimate that about £880 million will be spent on such training this year.
In our view, two main principles should underlie arrangements for organising and financing education and training. First, decisions governing the supply of nurses, midwives and health visitors should be taken as close as possible to the point of service delivery to ensure that decisions are responsive to local needs and to the changing requirements of employers. Central top slicing of a significant proportion of the funds for nursing and midwifery education, as happens now, is inconsistent with that principle. Secondly, the Government have a duty to ensure that, overall, mechanisms are in place to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained nurses, midwives and health visitors to meet the health needs of the nation for today and tomorrow.
Against that background, we intend that the regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, should have the main responsibility for identifying the demand for qualified nurses and midwives, for deciding the number of students who need to be recruited and trained and for funding pre-registration nursing and midwifery training. To enable that to happen, clause 5(2) removes the existing duty of the national boards to provide or arrange for others to provide education and training, so permitting the transfer of funding for the education and training of nurses from the national boards to health authorities and health boards.
We believe that this short Bill is vital to the future of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions. The reconstitution of the profession's statutory bodies will result in increased efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of those bodies and more direct accountability to the professions that they represent. I have no doubt that future historians of the professions will see the Bill as a major milestone in that history.

Mrs. Heal: Once again, I welcome the Bill on behalf of Labour Members. We believe that it is an important and necessary development for the nursing profession. It modernises and updates the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 and streamlines the functions and structures of the UKCC and the national boards, which the 1979 Act left somewhat confused.
We have been disappointed by the Government's inflexibility over some of the Bill's inadequacies. The Bill has enjoyed rare consensus for a health measure, and we had hoped that the Government would be willing to entertain some amendments that, we feel, would have greatly improved it.
In preparing to debate the Bill, I have been in contact with the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees and the Health Visitors Association. They have been very helpful in discussing the content and implications of the Bill and must be commended for the professional and practical ways in which they have represented their members and sought to achieve the best possible legislation for the nursing professions.
As I said, there are still major concerns. I draw the House's attention to the worrying decline in the number of students seconded to health visiting courses in the past 15 years. In 1975–76, there were 1,086, but that figure declined in 1989–90 to 847. More recent figures for 1990–91 are not yet available, but the United Kingdom Standing Conference of Health Visiting Lecturers has reported a further drop of 100 students, to approximately 750.
That is a very worrying trend, which does not appear to be the result of a lack of suitable applicants. In fact, many candidates are now forced to search nationwide for secondment. It seems that there is insufficient funding for secondments, which has led to a drastic reduction in available opportunities for students. That is even more worrying, as it appears that funds supposedly ring-fenced for nursing education are not being used.
There is confusion about where the funds are since they were transferred from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council under working paper 10 to maintain health visitor and district nursing training levels. It appears that many district health authorities are unclear about where and whether money is available for these courses. I call on the Government to take immediate action to investigate and then to act.
There is known to be a shortage of qualified health visitors in the north-west and some health authorities such as Oldham, Trafford and Rochdale have vacancies that they cannot easily fill. We were assured that that could not happen with ring-fenced funds, but it is happening now. That is why we tabled amendments in Committee to give statutory backing to ring fencing. We feared that, without the protection of statute, funds might be mistargeted or


misused. The Government have refused to accept that, but they must take action to ensure that the undertakings that they give are observed.
It is important for the future development of nursing and for the morale of nurses that the people involved see practical evidence that their future is protected. Health visitors see that training courses for their professions have been drastically reduced, and one must question the Government and seek an adequate explanation.
In 1989–90, Teesside had 12 places but now has no course. Reading had 32 places and now has 20. Liverpool had 24 places but now has none. These are cuts in training and provision. Thirty per cent. of health visitors are over the age of 50 and, although there is a stable turnover of staff at present, one can easily envisage a sudden drop in availability of experienced and trained health visitors in the next few years.
Health visitors and other community care nursing professions play a vital role in the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health. Their efforts are crucial to the success and development of a public health policy. Labour is committed to improving the health of the nation, and a Labour Government would launch a national health initiative to promote a healthy Britain. Such a strategy will cut through departmental boundaries and encompass every Department in promoting better life styles and social conditions for the maintenance of good health for all. Tackling poverty and inequalities will be vital steps, sadly ever more necessary today following 13 years of social neglect by the Government.
The nursing professions will play a vital role in educating, monitoring and preventing ill health among the people of Britain. They can do that only if they are given the opportunity and facilities to train and educate for the new challenges of the next decade and beyond. The Bill has been designed to do exactly that. Labour believes that certain aspects and statutory guarantees would have been more effective in achieving the stated aims of the Bill, but we do not wish to delay its progress on to the statute book.
We shall watch closely to ensure that the Government's pledges and assurances that we have sought on behalf of nurses and patients are honoured, and we shall watch with interest and shall support the opportunities for nursing that we hope the Bill will create.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) cannot have overlooked the fact that the Government introduced their own health of the nation campaign some time ago and that it is successfully under way. However, I have no wish to inject a party-political note into the debate; that is the last thing I want to do. I do not wish to detain the House and speak only because the Minister for Health tempted me to do so by referring to me.
The Minister referred especially to the Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill which has passed through all its stages in this House and had a Second Reading in another place on Friday. I hope that it will reach the statute book before we must all flee these buildings.
The Minister also referred to the publication today of the report on maternity services by the Select Committee on Health of which I am a member. I am sure that she will agree that it will prove to be a milestone in the history of maternity services. It refers frequently to the admirable work of midwives and, in particular, advocates that they be given a higher professional status. It is an extremely detailed report and I shall avoid the temptation to go into it because, fortunately, it has already been extensively reported in the media.
The Bill is the third measure today that has received all-party support and is well on its way to the statute book. This is perhaps a useful opportunity to point out to the nursing professions the enormous respect in which they are held and the great support that they have not only in the House but in the country from all political parties, at a time when the divisions between the parties will be highlighted. Perhaps it is just as well for the public to realise that, whatever words are exchanged in the next few weeks, it is possible for hon. Members to find some issues —such as those that I have mentioned—on which we are united and able to work together for the common good.
Although I suspect that health will be only one of the issues that will be well to the fore in the coming election, I hope that people in the health professions will realise that, whatever our political party, they have our full support and our admiration.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Disability Living Allowance

The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
The House will recall debating four sets of regulations setting out the detailed provisions for disability living allowance and disability working allowance last December. The regulations before the House tonight make a number of minor technical corrections to one of the sets —the disability living allowance regulations—which were debated then.
The amendment regulations make five changes. Amending regulation 2(2) corrects the original regulation which provides that payment of the care component of disability living allowance should cease four weeks after admission to hospital. In defining a hospital for this purpose, the original regulation omitted the necessary references to Scottish legislation.
Amending regulation 2(3)(a) is also entirely technical. It merely alters the opening words of the original to reflect the amended structure of the regulation.
Amending regulation 2(3)(b) and (c) corrects an error in the orginal regulation concerning the treatment of the DLA care component for children in the care of a local authority. In the past, attendance allowance has not been paid for children in the care of a local authority when they live in residential accommodation such as a children's home, but benefit has been payable for children living in a private dwelling—for example, with a family. Our intention was to carry forward that entirely sensible distinction into DLA. We made that clear in all the documentation on the regulations but, regrettably, the original regulation was defective. As drafted, it provides for virtually all children under the age of 16 in the care of a local authority to carry on getting the DLA care component regardless of where they live.
We believe that it is sensible not to pay a DLA care component when the care needs are already being met from public funds. As hon. Members may recall, we have decided, from April, to allow children in hospital to continue getting the DLA care component for 12 rather than four weeks, which will be of substantial help to the parents of children who spend protracted periods in hospital.
Amending regulation 2(3)(d) corrects an error in the original regulations relating to the care component for people who are terminally ill. Again, it has been a long standing policy that attendance allowance is not payable when accommodation is provided, or may be provided, from public funds, so as to avoid double provision for the same needs. Once again, with the introduction of DLA we have moved to relax that rule in the case of people who are terminally ill.
The original regulations correctly provided an exemption for terminally ill people living in accommodation where funding may be provided from public funds, but is not necessarily so provided in practice—normally in a voluntary hospice. However, we inadvertently failed to extend the exemption to cases where some public funding is provided to the hospice—for example, via a small grant from the local health authority.
We do not believe that such funding should affect the rights of terminally ill people to get DLA or attendance allowance, so the amending regulation corrects the error and ensures that terminally ill people in such accommodation are entitled, as was originally intended, to the care component of DLA.
Amending regulation 2(4) corrects an error in relation to the suspension of DLA care component when a recipient enters hospital or residential accommodation. The policy is for the DLA care component to cease after the recipient has been in the accommodation for 28 days —or 84 days for children under 16 in hospital.
However, the original regulation was defective, extending far more widely than intended. It could have had the nonsensical effect of treating almost any accommodation as "residential accommodation"—meaning for example, that the care component would be withdrawn after 28 days from a person in a private dwelling. The amending regulation removes that unwanted effect, and restores the original policy intention.
From that brief summary, I hope that it will be clear to the House that the regulations are purely technical. I am sorry that it has proved necessary to detain hon. Members at this hour to debate the regulations, but they are technical and beneficial, and no losers are created as a result of any of the amendments. The amendments simply restore the original intention, and guarantee the rights which we had initially intended.

Mr. Alfred Morris: These new regulations may seem wholly uncontroversial. As we have heard, they seek to correct drafting errors by the Government that relate to payment of the disability living allowance in Scotland and tighten the rules on payment of the DLA for 28 days after the claimant has entered hospital or scheduled accommodation.
Nevertheless, I have been widely pressed to oppose the regulations, in order to mark the very deep concern felt by organisations of and for disabled people about the Government's "double-speak"—I quote from a statement last week by the Disability Alliance—about the £300 million of "new" money which, they say, Ministers so misleadingly claim to have put into disability benefits via the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991.
The Disability Alliance is a federation of more than 200 organisations, many of them household names. Its views are therefore highly deserving of the attention of the House, and the charge of "double-speak" is a deeply serious one for the Government. But the charge is well documented. Indeed, the statement from the Disability Alliance in which it appears continues:
The most glaring example of Government double-speak concerns the £300 million 'new' money they claim to have put into disability benefits in 'The Way Ahead' package (January 1990). In fact, the phasing-out of rights to invalidity benefit (additional pensions), just one of the cuts to disability benefits which form part of the same package, will save the Government £475 million within the next decade."—[Official Report, 21 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 914.]
In other parliamentary replies, the Government have also admitted that they will start saving money on the disabled working allowance within two years and that, in fact, 95 per cent. of disabled people will gain not a single penny from either the DLA or the DWA, whose net cost,


as the Disability Alliance has demonstrated, is substantially less than the Government's anticipated saving from just one of their recent cuts to disability benefits.
It will be recalled that, in the social security changes of April 1988, more than 1 million disabled people lost payments that helped them with such unavoidable extra costs of disability as special diets, heating and laundering. Even people who are doubly incontinent, and too weak to carry bedclothes to a launderette, are denied the help that they used to get for their higher laundry costs.
The Government argue incessantly that spending on disability benefits has risen sharply since they came to power. The impression given is that disabled people are individually much better off than they were in 1979, but the increased spending since then has not been on higher benefits; it is accounted for almost wholly by higher take-up of the mobility and attendance, invalid care and other allowances that were introduced long before the present Government came to power. Since 1979, while average earnings have increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent. That is the truth about the Government's claim to have more disabled people better off.

Miss Widdecombe: I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but we are debating a set of amending regulations. His speech sounds like the arguments that have been rehearsed fairly comprehensively on Second Reading, in Committee, and at later stages. What has it to do with the amendments under discussion tonight?

Mr. Morris: I have referred at several points in my speech to the amendments, and I shall refer to them again as I go along. I have also told the House that there are people in organisations of and for disabled people who have asked me to oppose the regulations, in order to emphasise their deep concern about the Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Working Allowance Act 1991. They want other amendments, and they have asked me to set the Government's amendments in the context of what they would like to see. I have shown that, relative to most other people, disabled people have been made very much worse off, and that neither the amending regulations nor the legislation from which they stem will alter that fundamental truth about the Government's record.
Nor do these amending regulations alter in any way the unacceptable complexity of the rules of entitlement to the DLA care component and attendance allowance for people in all the various forms of institutional care. The main ambiguities revolve around the definition of "scheduled accommodation". It is not clear, for example, how respite care funded by local authorities is classified. Thus, someone looking for respite care for a temporary period is likely to have difficulty finding out whether they are excluded from benefit by regulation 9.
As I pointed out before the Act became law, there will be 11 different combinations of DLA awards. One assessment procedure for what are still two very separate benefits—the mobility and attendance allowances—will not make life any easier for claimants. The DWA is so villainously complex that disabled people qualifying may well not realise before claiming that they will be no better off. In fact, taking poll tax liability and loss of housing benefit into account, they could actually be worse off.
The hon. Lady will know that, together with other right hon. and hon. Members, I have had concern expressed to me about the position of claimants who sit on disability appeal tribunals. While the Government are encouraging disabled people to sit on DATs, to do so can affect their benefit levels. The attendance fee for DATs is £100 a day, but the DSS has no plans to change the rules on therapeutic earnings, so disabled people who sit on the tribunals may lose both their benefit and status as "unfit for work". One woman who wrote recently to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation about this commented:
We are being punished for doing a public service, which seems very unfair.
I hope the Minister will agree and act urgently to remedy the anomaly.
Again, I hope the Minister will respond urgently to the concern expressed by the ME Action Campaign about which I have made representations to her right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, as I know other right hon. and hon. Members will have done. In their letter to me on behalf of people disabled by myalgic encephalomyelitis, they ask for a rewrite of the entry describing ME in the DLA handbook. Their letter proceeds:
The fears of all disability groups concerning the Disability Living Allowance have been borne out, and particularly in the case of those disabled by ME, for whom the handbook description is outdated, inaccurate and demeaning and the application forms and tests for mobility are unfair and inappropriate.
We are sure you will agree that it is quite bad enough to suffer from a chronic disabling illness, without also being deprived of the benefits on which so many sufferers depend and regarded as malingerers by Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I very much regret having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long and considerable interest in the matter, but he is now straying rather far from the scope of the debate.

Mr. Morris: I am asked by the ME Action Campaign to say that, if the House of Commons is amending what is to them very important legislation, their voice should be heard as to other amendments to the Act, which are just as important as those now before the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the scope of the debate is much narrower than that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very considerable parliamentarian and has a long interest in and involvement in these matters. However, the scope of the debate is much narrower than the points with which he is now dealing.

Mr. Morris: Of course I accept your view, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much hope that the hon. Lady will give pleasure to all parts of the House by responding to the point I have made, which is an important one for the people for whom I speak.

Mr. Frank Haynes: When the Government talk about changes to benefits for disabled people in their legislation, what usually happens is that they set up a review. I am sick to death of this. Because of an increase in benefit or a change in benefit, the Government set up a review. People who have received disability benefit and who live in a wheelchair have to go through the review and for a period their benefit is stopped. It is a shocking state of affairs and it is high time that the Government came off


it. Disabled people, not only in my constituency but nationwide, are entitled to many things. They should receive them, and they should receive proper treatment from the Department.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has spoken with some intensity of feeling. He is taking an opportunity, as his constituents would expect, to represent their concerns. The amending regulations, to which I have referred on several occasions, are narrowly drawn. They have to be looked at in the context—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations must be looked at in the context in which they are drawn. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will now accept my ruling on the matter.

Mr. Morris: I will go no further in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
Tonight's debate provides an opportunity briefly to raise other concerns that have been voiced about the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991 and, in particular, the charge that the Government's current "so-called information campaign" —again I quote the Disability Alliance—is in fact a propagandist version of the truth which taxpayers are being made to pay for during a general election campaign.
A high-profile media campaign of television and newspaper advertisements is now under way and will end on 6 April. It will now have to take account, no doubt, of the regulations we are talking about here. I have said that the television and press advertising campaign is causing concern to disability organisations which they want the House to hear.
Last Sunday in The Observer, the Department of Social Security placed a huge advertisement about the disability working allowance, with a tear-off coupon for the reader to request information on the disability living allowance. Has confusion ever been more confused? To make matters even worse, the same advertisement appeared in The Guardian the following day. I must take this opportunity to say to the Government that a mistake of that order has to be corrected and very quickly.
I am reminded of the leniency, as some people thought, of Mark Twain's remark that
Wagner's music is not as had as it sounds.
In the view of many of this country's foremost authorities on disability benefits, the message from the Government's current media campaign is nowhere near as good as it looks.
These amending regulations do not go far enough to meet the concerns of organisations which speak for millions of disabled people in this country. I hope that the Minister will accept the concerns that I have expressed. I hope that she will appreciate the depth of feeling among those who speak for disability organisations. I do not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment regulations. No legislation, however, was more clearly in need of improvement than the 1991 Act. I hope that there will be more to it for the House to consider from a new Government, and very soon.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to speak only briefly on the amendment regulations. I had the honour to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Disability Living Allowance and Disability

Working Allowance Bill. I am pleased to see that it will come into effect on 1 April 1992. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult closely with her colleagues in the Department of Health, because on the same date the community care plans will also have to be published by local authorities.
I recently received a consultation document published by the Bolton authorities entitled "Bolton Community Care Plan." It draws attention to the needs of nine different client groups, including the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped. At long last, the document identifies considerable unmet needs which would cost in total, in the case of Bolton, some £5 million in additional resources. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult closely with her colleagues about how those unmet needs can be met.
The plans go into considerable detail. They have been drawn up well. They show that there is a need for £2·3 million in the coming year but that only £600,000 has been identified from existing resources as available to meet those needs. Those resources have been found from competitive tendering. Some £600,000 alone is needed to set up a centre at the former Moss Nook children's home, which will provide about 20 places for both mental health patients and people described as having challenging behaviour, many of whom suffer from severe mental and physical handicap.
I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Bolton if she has an opportunity, to see how the disability living allowance meets the needs to which the plans refer. I hope that she will be able to meet members of the Bolton handicap action group, which I helped to set up a few years ago, and which has played an active part in working with the health authority and local authority to attempt to provide some of the requirements of people whose needs are not met at present. When she comes to Bolton, I hope that she will have a chance to read the document if she does not do so before.
I draw her attention to page 166 where, under the heading of "Corporate Review of services for people with a learning disability" it identifies certain themes where service needs are greatest. I shall mention one theme because it underlines the need to consider these amending regulations carefully and to decide whether anything further can be done. The comment in the report is as follows:
some people get nothing, others know there is nothing to get, and often the people who need the most get the least".
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that closely in mind when considering these and any future regulations.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I wish to take up several genuine matters of concern which were mentioned by the Minister. The first involves people who are terminally ill. The Minister is perhaps aware that I have written to the Department several times on this subject. The hospices in my constituency—the Accord hospice and St. Vincent's hospice—both mentioned to me some time ago that the previous arrangements were causing a great deal of distress. Many people who were terminally ill, but did not necessarily know it, would apply, under the special conditions for severe disablement allowance. As they did not know that they were terminally ill, the application was perhaps made by their carer or through the Macmillan nurses. However, the regulations


state that the terminally ill person must be notified of any decision. That caused distress, because people who did not know that they were terminally ill were sent a booklet which told them that they had been awarded money because they were terminally ill. Will the Minister give an assurance that that will not happen with disability living allowance?
I received an ambiguous reply from the Minister recently which said that the Government would amend the wording, but gave no clear commitment that the carer would be notified if that was the choice of the carer and the terminally ill person.
Secondly, I ask for guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether it would be in order to mention the concerns of myalgic encephalomyelitis sufferers and to ask the Minister whether she has plans to introduce any regulations for them. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) here. He has done a lot of work on that subject. We are worried about the wording in the booklet, as it says that the disease could be all in the mind, when medical evidence is becoming more stacked against that view. We hope that the wording will be revised.
Thirdly, the application form is causing some concern because it is so complicated. A genuine question arises from that. A body of opinion, in the all-party group in the House and in the Disability Alliance, believes that many forums can be consulted about the wording of regulations. Which organisations has the Minister consulted before bringing the regulations to the House? In future, will she consult knowledgeable people, including the Disability Alliance and all the disability groups which are affected?
Finally, the Association of Councillors lobbied yesterday on this subject. As I understand it, one can earn only £39 a week before money is deducted pound for pound. I believe that the Minister of State has given an assurance on more than one occasion that that anomaly has been recognised and that something will be done. The fact is that something has not been done. The result is that councillors can attend only two meetings a week. That is a big price to pay for democracy. When disabled people, no matter what their disability, cannot enter local government because they would be financially penalised, that is a bad day for democracy.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am disappointed that the regulations do not cover the real problems experienced by the sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis, of whom there are between 200,000 and 300,000.
The Department of Social Security is well aware of the problem, because it has received representations not only from hon. Members and as a result of private Bills, but from the ME Action Campaign and the ME Association.
There is a strong feeling among politicians, sufferers and the charitable organisations that try to care for those sufferers that there is a conspiracy among the medical profession not to identify the real problems faced by ME sufferers. Only recently, I received a representations from those in psychiatry who have challenged some of my views. However, I should like to restate views that I have already made known to the House.
For too long, the medical profession has used psychiatry as the dumping ground for its failures and

inadequacies. More than 200,000 people suffer from an illness that has not been properly recognised. They suffer day in, day out for 24 hours a day, and they need help and recognition of their illness.
The Government talk, rightly so, about spending money properly and getting value for money. We have never been able to calculate the millions and millions of pounds that are spend in the health service on ME sufferers because of misdiagnosis. I challenge the Government to reconsider this matter. If we recognise the illness of ME properly we will not only be able to help those hundreds of thousands of sufferers and their families, but also save money for the health service. That is a true, self-financing Tory phenomenon.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and, please, to ignore the advice that is coming from the demagogues of the medical profession who have ignored the plight of ME sufferers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who has done so much work on this disease. All our constituents are grateful to him.
I have a question for the Secretary of State, who is present. In the necessarily fallow period while the elections are taking place, we all know that civil servants put their heads in proverbial cold towels and produce all sorts of plans for whoever are the incoming Government. I ask the Secretary of State to give an instruction while he is on the hustings that a good deal of thought is given to this complex problem. It is not easy, as all of us who have had to deal with this illness at first hand know.
This is a time for consideration and reflection in the Department. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask his chief medical officer and others who are likely to be producing plans for whoever are the incoming Government to have something ready on ME by the time that that Government are in place.

Miss Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate, with many contributions from hon. Members who have earned distinction for the way in which they have pursued these issues—over many years in the case of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
Although most of the points that have been raised have precious little to do with the regulations, they are important. I hope that I shall be allowed the same latitude in answering them as right hon. and hon. Members were allowed in the first place.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) spoke about the terminally ill and the sensitive problem concerning those who do not know that they are so ill, who find out that they have a limited time to live when they are informed about what money they will receive. The problem is fully recognised. Claimants have to be notified that they are receiving money and how much money, and we have not found a way to avoid doing that. However, they are not, and they never will be, told the reasons why.
We shall be watching this closely in view of the representations that have been made. I hope that that is satisfactory, but if, even on that limited basis, the hon. Gentleman can raise cases of distress being caused,


perhaps he will continue his correspondence with me and we shall have another look. However, I cannot do as he asked and promise new regulations to take account of that.
I was amazed to be told by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that the television advertising campaign is propaganda. It is the provision of information, and that has been widely welcomed by just about all the disability organisations. If we had not had a take-up campaign or a series of advertising to get across the message, the right hon. Gentleman would, quite rightly, have been the first to ask what we were doing to make sure that a completely new benefit, and a slightly complex one, was being taken up. I refute any suggestion of propaganda.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the unfortunate error in the disability working allowance advertisement. I assure him that anyone who sends off one of these coupons will get the right information and we shall be placing many more advertisements in an attempt to get the right message across and to correct that unfortunate error.
I am aware of the unfortunate business about disabled members of disability appeal tribunals and the problem of the effect on their benefits. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister of State is giving active consideration to how we can put this right.
Three hon. Members mentioned the ME Action Group and, before one of them was ruled out of order, they got in enough points to enable me to respond. The ME Action Group has made representations to the disability living allowance advisory board about whether people with ME should qualify for the DLA. That section of the handbook on ME was rewritten in the light of the helpful comments from organisations representing ME sufferers, but the whole point of the DLA is that it is related not to the illness or complaint of disability but to the effects of those disabilities.
So as to guage accurately those effects, we have the rather long form that has been criticised tonight. For many years, as the right hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware, we have been under pressure from organisations representing disabled people to introduce more self-assessment and to have less what they call "interference" from the medical profession. Self-assessment means asking claimants a large number of questions that would previously have been asked of the medical profession. Therefore, although the form is long, it is designed to address points made in the representations that we have persistently received, and it has been widely welcomed.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask this in an interrogatory spirit rather than a hostile or critical one. Is the Department quite sure that both it and the medical profession can be certain about the effects of ME? I have the impression as a layman that this is one of the problems. Constituency experience has shown me that there is considerable argument about the effects of ME. There is possibly a difference between how doctors see it and how patients perceive themselves.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, but there is disagreement among the medical profession about the effects. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the advisory board is no longer medically dominated and we now take the advice of those suffering from disabilities and of laymen. It is not just a question of accepting one set of medical advice. We

can act only on the information that we are given. I stress that it is the effects that matter, and the effects of most disabilities and illnesses vary from person to person.

Mr. Hood: I thank the Minister for her clarity. I shall photostat a few copies of Hansard tomorrow and send them to one or two doctors who have been ignoring the effects of illness and disability. I agree with the Minister. Those of us who try to advise our constituents on health matters are frustrated by the fact that doctors are getting into a wrangle about diagnosis and are ignoring effects. When a person is disabled, he or she should be treated as such. Although doctors may argue about diagnosis, they should ensure that a person who is ill and bedridden and needs help receives it. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that it is the effect that matters.

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman's interventon was aimed at getting me to clarify what I said, I have pleasure in confirming that his interpretation is correct —the effect rather than the defined illness matters.
The issue of counsellors relates to a completely different disability benefit—severe disablement allowance. I do not wish to introduce too quarrelsome a note into the debate because it has been productive, but I absolutely refute the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that the Government are guilty of double-speak when it comes to the new money that we are investing in the measure. It must be obvious to anyone capable of moving beads on an abacus that, if people are to receive the same level of benefits and if others are to be brought into the system for the first time, extra money is being made available.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his contribution. Obviously, we are in constant contact with our colleagues in the Department of Health and we recognise the many community care issues that must be dealt with.

Mr. McMaster: May I press the Minister on a further issue? Who will the Minister consult in future when bringing forward regulations that affect disabled people? Will she consult the groups that know what the problems are and can draft appropriate regulations?

Miss Widdecombe: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having missed that point out of the many that he raised. We have already consulted widely on the regulations, the main Bill, and the various suggestions that were made to us as a result of the Bill and we shall continue to consult widely.
In the meantime, I commend these technical and beneficial regulations, which we have rather forgotten tonight, to the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is no part of my intention to forget the amendment regulations. I return specifically to them. It is not just my view but that of many other people who know the 1991 Act well that these amending regulations in no way alter the unacceptable complexity of the rules of entitlement to the DLA care component and attendance allowance for people in all the various forms of institutional care.
It is put to me by organisations closely involved in the care of disabled people who live in institutions that, as I


argued, the main ambiguities revolve around the definition of "scheduled accommodation". For example, it is not clear how respite care funded by local authorities is classified, which must be an important point. Someone looking for respite care for a temporary period is likely to have difficulty finding out whether he or she is excluded from benefit by regulation 9. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to that point about the amendment regulations.
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the validity and force of the point that I made about the appalling mistake in the advertisement that appeared in two national newspapers. I am glad that the hon. Lady has accepted that it was a serious mistake that not only appeared in The Observer on Sunday but was repeated in The Guardian on Monday.
The hon. Lady said that she could not accept my charge that the Government are guilty of "double-speak". I made it pikestaff plain that the charge is not mine. I quoted the Disability Alliance, which speaks for more than 200 organisations of and for disabled people, many of them household names. It states:
The most glaring example of Government double-speak concerns the £300 million `new' money they claim to have put into disability benefits in 'The Way Ahead' package (January 1990).
To correct what the hon. Lady told the House, the organisation said that, with one cut alone—
the phasing-out of rights to invalidity benefit (additional pensions)"—
the Government will save £475 million. It is the totality of help arising from the package with which the organisations are concerned.
The hon. Lady told me that she did not think that the press and television advertising about that benefit was misleading. It is not my charge, but that of Sally Witcher, than whom few people know more about disability benefits, past and present. She was asked to join the consultative panel for the "BBC Select" series and says:
BBC Select … has so far clearly demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice understandability at the altar of propaganda … Presenting DLA and DWA in such a rosy light will not obscure the gross inadequacies of the two benefits.
The important charge that she makes, and which I have sent to Sir Michael Checkland, is that blatantly misleading election propaganda is to go on being transmitted by a public service broadcasting organisation, without right of comment by other parties, virtually throughout the expected timing of a general election campaign.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his ridiculous flight of rhetoric, will he tell us whether or not he thinks that measures that extend nearly another £12 a week to 300,000 people should or should not be advertised, so that the money can get to them?

Mr. Morris: I have said nothing against the desirability of advertising. I am quoting the organisations of disabled people. If it is a ridiculous flight of rhetoric, that is a criticism of what they are saying. I ask the Secretary of State, who has great experience in this policy area, and the Minister of State, to meet as quickly as they can with representatives of Disability Alliance and other organisations whose views I have been trying to present to the

House tonight. They ought not to be of ridiculous flights of rhetoric. I am simply saying that their views—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What are your views?"] My view is that grave mistakes have been made. It has been accepted—

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again, as this is important. I am not asking him to rehearse the views of organisations outside the House. I am asking him to give me, across the Floor of the House, his view on whether additional benefits of nearly £12 a week to several hundred thousand people should or should not be advertised to those people.

Mr. Morris: I am saying that, if the benefits are advertised, they must be advertised correctly, not misleadingly. When the Secretary of State for Social Security was on the Opposition Benches, I was in government. He was always beside himself in trying to tell the House what organisations of and for disabled people were saying about the policies of the Government of the day—for example, about the mobility allowance that I introduced, the invalid care allowance and so on. He was always telling us what the organisations said. I rest our case there in support of listening to what the organisations say—please listen to them.

Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to go unchallenged. Before I come to the unpleasant part of the business, I must say that, on the matter of respite care —the purely technical point raised by the right hon. Gentleman—there is no change in the current position.
I am sorry that a productive, courteous and useful debate has had to end on a note of quite disgraceful propaganda—not from the Government, but from the Opposition. They accused us of issuing propaganda, but when challenged all that they could say was that there had been a mistake in one advertisement. Of what are they accusing us? The right hon. Gentleman cannot wash his hands of it; he has made accusations from the Dispatch Box. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view? Will he give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an answer? Should those benefits be advertised, or not?

Mr. Alfred Morris: I was a Minister for more than five years and I advertised benefits. Every conceivable step should be taken to maximise take-up. I am saying that a great deal of misleading information has gone to people who have enough to put up with because of their disabilities, without having to complain to the House about misleading information.

Miss Widdecombe: We are now clear that the complaint is not about propaganda, but about a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the complaint about election propaganda. Is that what we are to understand? I think that we do understand that.
The two benefits will bring help to an additional 850,000 people, which will give additional help amounting to £300 million—no matter what the Opposition say—and which have been widely welcomed by a vast range of disability organisations, on whose representations we made the changes in the first place. They represent a major advance. I do not want to divide and rule, but most of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have been


constructive tonight. The right hon. Gentleman's sentiments will not be shared by those who will now be able to work, but who were not able to work before without severe loss of benefit, and by those who will now be able to claim care components that they could never claim before.
This is a great, humane piece of legislation. It stands as a testimony to the ability and the dedication of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—who, regrettably, cannot be here tonight—and to the humanity and the deep commitment to the disabled of the whole Government. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of the way in which he has warped the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

PETITION

Mifegyne

Mr. Michael Lord: I wish to present to the House a petition drawn up by the Ipswich branch of the organisation Life against the drug Mifegyne, also known as RU486. The petition bears the signatures of 194 parishioners of St. Mary Magdalene's church, Norwich road, Ipswich, who believe that untold harm will be done if that pill becomes generally available in this country:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of Mifegyne (known as RU486) and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying human life.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Ozone Layer

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the 30 years since I was elected in May 1962, I have had 37 Adjournment debates ranging from Lockerbie to the rain forest, from kidney transplants to unemployment in the then mining villages of Blackridge, Fauldhouse and Stoneyburn which, in 1963, stood at an unacceptable 5·5 per cent. Yet in all that time no topic has approached in importance the plant pathology and skin cancer threat of an ozone hole.
The stakes are mind-boggling. The issues, as the Secretary of State for the Environment was reported to have said in New York earlier in the week, are dramatic for humankind. If some of the more alarmist views are half correct, it could mean that we could go the way of dinosaurus and pterodactyl, and it would be curtains for human life.
However, I am not alarmist. One of the saltier scientists with whom I talked said that, in the short term, if a person spent March and April in the nude in Scotland he would be safer than if he sunbathed on one day at high noon in Malta. That is the view that I take in the short term. In the medium and longer term it may be a different story. In general, I am concerned about the year 2000, 2005 and 2010. By his nodding of the head I think that the Minister assents to that general view.
My application for an Adjournment debate was prompted first of all by the recent NASA public statements, which may, incidentally, have been prompted in turn by internal problems in the NASA set-up and, secondly, by the widely reported statements of Greenpeace.
For example, at the top of page one of The Scotsman on 14 February, over the byline of its justifiably respected environment correspondent, Auslan Cramb, my concerned constituents were told:
Pollution map points way to ozone hole over Scotland.
That appeared on the front page of a quality newspaper. He went on to say:
A new map of atmospheric pollution has for the first time given a dramatic early warning of possible ozone destruction above Scotland. It shows exceptionally high levels of the main ozone-depleting chemical—chlorine monoxide—over Scotland, Scandinavia and Russia, with the highest concentrations above Shetland and the west of Norway. Scientists have given warning that the pollution, caused by man-made chemicals, could herald the creation of an ozone hole similar to the one which appears over the Antarctic every spring. The next few weeks will be critical as increasing sunshine in the northern hemisphere encourages the reactions which can destroy the life saving layer.
That is strong stuff, and it is no wonder I came rushing down hoping to put a private notice question, so concerned were my constituents. That article continued:
Ozone protects the planet from cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, and health specialists say a 10 per cent. decrease in ozone levels could lead to 300,000 extra skin cancers and up to 1·75 million extra eye cataracts each year.
The possibility of an ozone hole above highly-populated areas was revealed last week by scientists in Europe and America.
What are the people affected to make of that? The article adds:
The latest graphic representation of the findings, showing the highest concentrations of C10 in yellow and orange, was produced for Heriot-Watt. Dr. Robert Harwood, of

Edinburgh University's department of meteorology, stressed that concentrations of C10 would vary, and its presence was not a guarantee that ozone-thinning would take place.
That is alarming enough.
Those of us concerned with the environment are delighted that Geoffrey Lean of The Observer has made a marvellous and miraculous recovery and is returned to health, and he showed enormous courage in doing so. He wrote under the headline
Fears over the ozone layer spur action on treaty
the following report:
The studies predict that harvests in the US and the former Soviet Union will be decimated as the greenhouse effect takes hold. Food exports from the US, which help to feed 100 nations, could fall catastrophically.
The African savannahs, home to 200 million people, would dry out to resemble the Sahel.
That also is alarming stuff, yet with the experience of having written on a weekly basis for New Scientist for more than a quarter of a century, I must tell the Minister that Mr. Chris Rose and his colleagues at Greenpeace have produced serious work that deserves serious and detailed Government reply.
Greenpeace knows that I am the public friend of the nuclear power companies, of British Nuclear Fuels and, heaven help me, of Nirex—and do not always share Greenpeace's opinions. Rather than repeat everything that they said, and although I am fortunate to have a little extra time, I shall truncate their remarks. However, I asked Mr. Chris Rose to submit his material to Dr. Alan Apling of the Department of the Environment and to the Minister's other advisers. I also gave notice to the Minister of other authorities that I consulted in preparation for this Adjournment debate and before formulating my questions.
Those to whom I spoke included Professor Tom Blundell, FRS. director of Agricultural and Food Research Council: Professor John Dale, professor of botany at Edinburgh university, dean of the faculty of biological sciences-I should say I am a member of the university's biological sciences advisory committee; Dr. Joe Farman of Cambridge, who first identified the ozone hole above the Antarctic; Professor John Knill and his colleagues at the Natural Environment Research Council; Sir John Mason, a distinguished cloud physicist who was the former head of the Meteorological Office; Dr. Paul Rogers of Bradford university, and expert of NASA and a plant pathologist by training; and Dr. David Royle of Long Ashton research centre. I received valuable briefs from the House of Commons Library science section, and from the Labour party.
I just have time to make brief reference to the Greenpeace brief that was sent to the Department. It states:
We are pressing for a complete and immediate ban on ozone depleting substances and will continue to do so in the run up to the March 23 formal EC Environment Ministers meeting. Germany has reiterated its intention to go further than the EC informal agreement (of a 100 per cent. phase out by the end of 1995) and intends to phase out all CFCs in 1993. There is no legal obstacle to Britain doing the same (it is allowed under Article 130 of the Single European Act).
Greenpeace believes that the results from NASA, and from the European Arctic stratospheric ozone experiment, show that severe ozone depletion, possibly resulting in the creation of an ozone hole could occur over parts of the northern hemisphere—including Britain—in the next few weeks or months. Preliminary NASA results released on 3 February show that the development of a late winter or


spring ozone hole is increasingly likely. The reason is that CFCs and other chlorine-containing chemicals have reached the stratosphere and have been broken down to chlorine monoxide, with halons being broken down to create bromine monoxides. NASA has found 1·5 parts per billion of chlorine monoxide over eastern Canada and northern New England—a higher level than has ever before been recorded over the north or south polar regions.
Data have also indicated a lessening of the atmosphere's predicted ability to recover from periods of ozone depletion. The likelihood of significant volcanic ozone loss over the northern hemisphere, now and in the future, is greatly increased by the presence of large quantities of natural volcanic particles in the lower stratosphere, which effectively lock up oxides of nitrogen that would otherwise combine with reactive chlorine before it is involved in the reactions that lead to ozone destruction.
An increase in the number of sulphuric acid particles, which act in that way, is the result of a tenfold increase in stratospheric aerosol created by the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. That eruption has affected the likely timing and severity of ozone depletion, but it would not cause that without the chlorine and bromine pollution.
The chemicals that contribute to the pollution include CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, HCFCs, methyl chloroform and halons. In the United Kingdom, ICI is the largest manufacturer of those chemicals. It has announced the closure of its CFC 11 and CFC 12 plants from early 1993, but it then intends to import CFCs from the Dutch chemical company Akzo.
The Department has received the rest—and, indeed, the summary—of the hard work done by Greenpeace. Let me add that, according to the opening leader in New Scientist on 15 February—written by an extremely responsible and knowledgeable man—
New Scientist does not always see eye to eye with Greenpeace, but it happens that when Greenpeace calls for a ban on the production of all substances that deplete ozone, it is talking sound scientific common sense. The Prime Minister should not instinctively reject its proposals.
Having received notice, will the Government tell me their reaction to the work of Greenpeace?
The Scotsman says:
Springtime is the danger period in both northern and southern hemispheres, when sunshine arrives after a long dark winter, causing the perfect conditions for ozone destruction by chemical reaction. The ozone overhead in Europe during this month and next month is already 8 per cent. less than it was a decade ago. Tackling the problem is not so much a political opportunity, but a life-saving opportunity, and the Government should act now. It will give scientists and environmentalists no satisfaction to say I told you so. In a week's time the satellite which suggested the ozone layer above Britain was primed for destruction, will face the northern hemisphere again. What it then reveals should be irrelevant. The need for drastic action has been proven.
My distilled view is that we are not dealing with an ecological time-bomb that is likely to go off in 1992 or 1993, but by 2005, the situation could be horrendous. However, because it will get worse before it gets better, we have a five to 10-year lag time. The questions that I ask are therefore urgent and really for the here and now. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy and a knowledgeable chemist, knows that there are such things as lag times. I see that he assents to that general view.
The chief danger may not be human beings but the effect on crops. I understand that there is a possibility of ultra-violet damage to crops, especially seedlings. DNA absorbs strongly in ultra-violet, which causes chromosome breakages and mutations in higher plants, and that is proportional to dose. The suggestion is that natural levels of ultra violet, for example in polar regions and the tropics, may affect species distribution favouring those with a low nuclear DNA content.
If that hypothesis is correct, increases in ultra-violet may have long-term effects on ecosystems leading to the exclusion of species with high nuclear DNAs. Some evidence suggests that ultra violet can damage chloroplast DNA, the extra-nuclear genetic machinery present in green cells. This may lead to abnormalities in photosynthetic machinery and loss of yield, quite apart from any other effects through the nuclear genetic mechanism.
The susceptibility of seedlings to ultra violet varies with species. Most experimental work is done with young seedlings, because they grow quickly, in a limited range of crop plants. More work must be done, particularly in relation to flavonoid synthesis. On exposure to high levels of ultra violet, many plants produce large amounts of flavonoid pigments, which absorb ultra violet and thus minimise damage elsewhere in the cell. Quite a lot is known about the biochemistry of the effects, and ultra violet appears to increase transcription rates of genes involved in flavonoid synthesis.
There are common features of the biosynthetic pathways leading to flavonoid production and to production of anti-fungal compounds and phytoalexins, which are produced on exposure to fungal attack. I do not know—nor do those with whom I have talked—and I have been unable to find out whether exposure to ultra violet, thus stimulating the flavonoid pathway, also confers anti-fungal resistance by stimulating that part of the route common to phytoalexin synthesis. Plants weakened by ultra violet damage may be more liable to fungal bacterial attack nevertheless.
There is a desperate need for research in this field. I understand that researchers led by Dr. David Royle and Dr. Keith Brent at Long Ashton and by Peter Ayres at Lancaster are applying for a number of grants and help in dealing with this situation.
The Library of the House has produced some excellent material on the consequences for plants of ozone depletion. Dr. Ann Davies of the Library has written on that subject and the information will be available to the Department. I found it extremely convincing.
On 25 February, I asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment the departmental plant pathologists had made of the results for agriculture of changes in the ozone layer. The Under-Secretary replied:
Against the background of the Department of the Environment's continuing programme of work on the effects of ozone depletion on plants, this Department is considering advertising for a research proposal on this matter.
Why do not the Government agree at once—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Dalyell: Why do not the Government agree at once to back the proposal of the Agricultural and Food


Research Council from Long Ashton and Lancaster about the effect of climatic changes on plant diseases, especially in relation to ultra-violet radiation and moisture within the biological adaptation to global and environmental change programme?
I shall ask questions of which I have given notice. What information does the Minister have on the ozone-depletion studies being conducted by United Kingdom scientists at Kiruna in Sweden? What is the current and predicted depletion of the ozone layer this season? What is the percentage increase in ultra violet reaching the surface, and what data are the United Kingdom getting from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on ozone depletion and ultra violet increase?
I commend to the Department an article by Dr. John Pyle which 1 know that it has read. I ask about the European Arctic stratosphere ozone experiment which has a better understanding of stratospheric ozone and how it is destroyed around the Arctic. Dr. Pyle ends his study by saying:
While the experiments end in March next year, that is not the end of the project. Analysis of the data will continue for months and in some cases for years afterwards. The experiments will provide new data that should reveal valuable and exciting information about the processes controlling the evolution of the low stratosphere. It will he a period of sustained concerted effort to monitor all the processes contributing to ozone loss in the northern hemisphere. The scientists involved hope for many advances from this innovative combination of data, experiment and theory. By its very nature the project already marks a significant success, the coming together of the European atmospheric scientists in an endeavour in which national and European Community funds have been pooled to build an enterprise well beyond the work of a single country.
There was a good deal of argument in the House yesterday about diversification of defence. There is a crying need for resources at the very limits of technology to do the work of the kind Dr. Pyle mentions, which, at the end of the day, may protect us all.
I draw to the Government's attention the Greenpeace note on ozone depletion over Sweden. Do they think that there are any inaccuracies in it?
What is the effect of ultra-violet on phytoplankton, and to what depth does it have an effect? That is a very important question in the view of Sir John Mason.
I refer to the letter of 3 March from Secretary of State for Scotland in which he said:
We do however share your concern which is why we have asked the advisory group, the Committee on medical aspects of radiation, to consider the implications for health.
I have given notice to the Department that I should like a comment on the work of that organisation.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on initiating the debate. The subject has been a matter of concern for many Members of the House, and has been the subject of two well supported early-day motions. Will my hon. Friend also say that it should be a matter for concern to the Government that in 1990 this country exported about 40,000 tonnes of CFCs, and that an earnest of Government concern would be an attempt to persuade exporters to curtail those exports rapidly and completely?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is one of those Members who knows how best to use the considerable, expert and scholarly resources of the Library. He may like to read the

briefs that have been prepared for me by Christopher Barclay and Nicola Donlon. In my view that is excellent work, which would go some way towards providing a serious answer to my hon. Friend's question.
What are the Government doing about sheer basic information to prevent the likelihood of cancers—simple advice such as saying, "If you must sunbathe, do so after three o'clock when the sun is lowering, rather than when the sun is high in the sky"?
In an excellent study in The Bandar times this week. Sean Ryan, its environment correspondent, wrote:
'Politicians say the right thing, but they never seem to get around to committing themselves to doing it …
in 1985 … we reported the ozone hole. It was obvious there was a problem then but seven years later people are still arguing about whether it's necessarry to do anything'.
Only time will tell who is right.
The figures for the occurrence of skin cancer appear in a written answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) at column 582 of Hansard of 27 February. I refer the Minister to what his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, told the House there.
Do the Government agree that there is no long-term future for CFC substitutes? What is their policy for recycling, and will they have proposals for the Copenhagen conference in November—whichever Government represent us there? What is the Government's commitment to getting rid of halo-carbons?
In that context it is vital to support the work of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. A year ago I went to Rothamsted, and was the guest of Professor Lewis and his colleagues. Professor Lewis has written a powerful letter to Professor Blundell, which is available to the Department, as is the work being done at Long Ashton, just outside Bristol. Some fairly quick decisions are wanted.
For example, some of the work being done is to determine the ranges of tolerance to key climatic variables of pathogen parameters important in determining epidemic development, especially the effects of ultra-violet light and moisture—in order to contribute to our understanding the effects of climatic change on the occurrence of fungal plant diseases. Incidentally, the fungal aspects are enormously important, as the hon. Member for Rochford, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy knows.
Finally, why have the Government not yet paid their cheque for the Montreal convention, and why have they not pressurised our European partners to ratify the protocol?
My good fortune in having a little more time that I expected has enabled me to give just a taste of the kind of evidence now emerging. I am glad that the Minister now has 22 minutes in which to reply, because more people will be interested in what the Government are doing, and in what the Department is thinking, than in what I have to say on the matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important topic. It is a complex topic which requires a degree of intellectual honesty, and which requires us all to rely on the best science and to have regard


to principles such as the precautionary principle. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue with his usual courtesy and with his usual thoroughness.
The threat of stratospheric ozone depletion and the potential impacts that that might have on human life and on the environment have been of concern to the Government since the negotiations leading to the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer in 1985. Throughout the period, United Kingdom scientists have made major contributions to unravelling the complexities of ozone depletion. The Government have played a full and often leading role in developing the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, restricting and eventually phasing out the production of ozone-depleting chemicals.
We have made a payment of United States $1 million towards the Montreal protocol. That represents the United Kingdom contribution towards work programmes already agreed. We remain fully committed to meeting our obligations to the interim multilateral fund as agreed in June 1990, but it will be difficult for us to make future payments unless the fund starts forecasting future disbursements and receipts to give donors confidence that it is not building up excessive cash balances. We believe that contributions to the fund should match as closely as possible expected annual disbursements against work programmes and should not be required as arbitrary divisions of the total. Good, realistic financial planning and credible assurances that successive cash balances will not be built up are required and are routinely provided by other funding agencies such as the World bank.
We are determined to meet all our obligations to the Montreal protocol. We have taken a leading part in the work of the Montreal protocol.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister clarify the question of subscriptions to the protocol?

Mr. Baldry: With respect, that is the point with which I have been dealing for the past three minutes. I am happy to repeat my comments, but I suspect that, if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I have dealt with the matter at some length.
United Kingdom industry has also contributed by voluntarily limiting the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, taking a leading role in the development of substitutes and planning to phase out the production of the principal components ahead of the Montreal protocol requirements.
In recent weeks, considerable confusion and anxiety have arisen among the general public about the possibility of health risks from increased ultra-violet radiation as a result of ozone depletion. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House's attention to that concern. I will try to answer the concerns, some of which are largely based on misunderstanding, with the hon. Gentleman's other important points.
First, it may help if I summarise the facts as we know them about stratospheric ozone depletion. I will take particular care to differentiate between general ozone layer depletion and the special conditions that apply over the polar regions.
Only in the past year or two has painstaking analysis of satellite and ground-based measurements given clear evidence of general ozone layer depletion. In the mid-latitudes of both northern and southern hemispheres, including the latitudes of the British Isles and Northern

Europe, total column ozone appears to have decreased at a rate of about 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. per decade over the past 12 years. The depletion is higher in late winter and spring than in summer. Total ozone layer reductions since measurements began in the 1950s could be up to 8 per cent. in those latitudes. There still seems to be very little depletion over equatorial regions.
The so-called ozone hole which now appears over south polar regions between September and December each year was much more easy to detect than general ozone depletion. It was the first measured stratospheric ozone depletion to be linked directly with chlorine and bromine containing chemicals released into the atmosphere from human activities. It has appeared every year since it was first reported by Dr. Joe Farman and his colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey in 1985. The depletion in 1991 was as deep and extensive as any seen in previous years, with total ozone over Antarctica being some 60 per cent. less than the pre-1970 levels.
The key to these dramatic Antarctic springtime ozone reductions is a combination of chlorines and bromine-containing chemicals and special meteorological conditions. Ice crystals that form in polar stratospheric clouds under the intensely cold conditions of the southern polar winter provide surfaces for chemical reactions which multiply the ozone-depleting effect of chlorines and bromine-containing chemicals. These reactions are triggered as the sun returns in the austral spring.
An ozone hole has not been observed over northern polar regions. There are some obvious arguments why this should be so. In the southern hemisphere, winds are relatively free to circulate, building up a vortex of intensely cold, isolated air during the Antarctic winter which is ideal for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds and development of the chemistry which precedes ozone depletion. In the northern hemisphere, the abundant land masses interfere with wind circulation and the winter arctic air mass is neither as cold nor as isolated as the Antarctic vortex.
Nevertheless, as levels of chlorine and bromine chemicals in the stratosphere are bound to increase for some years to come, irrespective of international actions taken on controlling production, there is concern that enhanced Arctic ozone depletion may eventually develop driven by the concentration of ozone-depleting chemicals.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister uses the word "eventually". Is any timespan tagged to that? Incidentally, I welcome the presence of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who takes the matter extremely seriously and went to Estoril some 10 days ago.

Mr. Baldry: We cannot predict with any certainty. In several areas, one relies throughout on the precautionary principle, of which I shall say more in a moment. Indeed, the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier, demonstrate that the whole Government take the matter seriously. Indeed, that is why I welcome the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to ensure that some of these matters can be recorded in Hansard for everyone to see.
It might be helpful if I were to give some indication of the present Arctic research campaign. This winter and


spring, an intensive study of the Arctic atmosphere is being carried out by the European Arctic stratospheric ozone experiment. The experiment involves more than 250 scientists from 17 EC and EFTA countries. The key management role is being played from Kiruna in northern Sweden by the European Ozone Research Coordination Unit, directed by Dr. John Pyle and funded by the Department of the Environment and the European Community. It is fortunate that measurements are also currently being made from the new United States upper atmosphere research satellite launched last September and the United States airborne Arctic campaign. The three experiments complement each other and there is good collaboration between the teams of scientists involved.
The Arctic experiment is an exciting one. We hope that it will add substantially to our understanding of the scientific details of ozone-depleting chemistry and lead directly to improved predictions of future ozone depletion, about which I will say more later.
Unfortunately, early results from the study have been widely misinterpreted. There was genuine misunderstanding on the part of various commentators. That has led to recommendations for people to take unnecessary precautionary measures and to considerable anxiety among the general public. The hon. Gentleman made reference to certain articles in national newspapers which had exacerbated those anxieties.
The problem began in early February, when United States and European scientists announced the first results of the Arctic campaigns. Those results showed that, largely as expected, the chemistry of the Arctic stratosphere exhibited all the classic ingredients now well known from Antarctic studies that lead to enhanced ozone depletion, provided that polar stratospheric clouds are formed in sufficient quantities to provide the essential reacting surfaces.
An additional complicating fact this year is the presence of particulate matter injected into the stratosphere by the eruption of the mount Pinatubo volcano which might provide an additional source of reacting surfaces for ozone-depleting reactions.
Those reports were unfortunately misinterpreted as announcing actual or imminent ozone-holes of Antarctic proportions over the northern hemisphere. The misinterpretations have in turn led to calls for ultra-violet radiation forecasts and health warnings, arousing considerable but unnecessary general anxiety.
Let me say very clearly now, that there is no Arctic ozone hole and no indication of severe ozone depletion over Britain. That has been forcibly pointed out by Dr. Joe Farman, the discoverer of the Antarctic ozone hole, in the national press last week, when he emphasised that ozone levels over Britain were still within the range of natural variability at this time of year.

Mr. Dalyell: I have also talked to Joe Farman. Does the Minister accept that he is concerned about the years 2000, 2005 and 2010, and, whereas that is probably true in the immediate future, we had better not be complacent, had we?

Mr. Baldry: Nothing that I have said has been complacent. If the hon. Member gives me a chance, I shall get to the future. He asked a large number of questions, all

of which I am endeavouring to answer, but they are complex and it is obviously important to get the science right.
The scientists studying the Arctic stratosphere are in constant, direct contact with Governments. They report that the perturbed chemistry that they have observed has not progressed to extensive enhanced ozone depletion of the kind seen in Antarctica. The ozone depletion that was observed in January and early February appears to have been broadly consistent with the rate of general ozone depletion of some 4 to 6 per cent. per decade in northern mid-latitudes.
Continuous measurements of ultra-violet radiation made in the United Kingdom by the National Radiological Protection Board on a routine basis, and research measurements made as part of the Department of the Environment's research programme show no evidence of being significantly higher than the normal range for this time of year. I have our results for Lerwick for 3 March, which at 324 Dobson units are well within the seasonal norm. Any sudden apparent increase outside the norm would immediately be notified.
The claims of possible danger to human health amongst people going about their normal business in the United Kingdom at this time of year are totally unjustifed, and I believe we need to get the risks of ozone depletion back into perspective.
There is no doubt that, all other things being equal, less stratospheric ozone means that more ultra-violet B radiation from the sun will reach ground level. Exposure to UVB is associated with a variety of human health problems. However, human beings are naturally subject, and voluntarily subject themselves, to a range of exposure which is much greater than any yet implied or expected due to ozone layer depletion. Even assuming clear sky conditions, UVB radiation levels in Britain are some twentyfold greater during the summer than in the winter simply because the sun is more directly overhead in the summer. Also in the summer, UVB levels in popular holiday areas at lower latitudes, like Spain—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Malta— are more than double what they are in southern England. We increase our exposure during the summer, and particularly while on holiday.
The Government are of course concerned at the significant increase of skin cancer, both in the United Kingdom population and in other countries, that has occurred in the past 10 years. The suspect factor is thought to be sunbathing, and the increased opportunities for sunbathing that modern travel and technology afford. The important point to bear in mind is that everyone should take care in the sun. Existing advice issued by the Health Education Authority about minimising exposure to sunlight should be observed.
In that context, a small increment due to ozone depletion on the already low levels of UVB that we receive at this time of year is insignificant.
However, coming to the question which the hon. Gentleman just raised, if that is the position, what is the concern? Is it at all justified? I believe that it is for four reasons. First, the concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere are bound to continue to rise for the next 10 years or so. This will remain true even if we are successful in advancing production phase-out dates for ozone-depletion chemicals when the parties to the Montreal protocol meet in November this year. We shall certainly take a full part in those discussions.
Secondly, we cannot yet predict with confidence how the increased ozone-depleting chemical levels will affect stratospheric ozone. Present predictive models only partially explain polar ozone depletion, and under-predict by a factor of about two the general ozone depletion now thought to have occurred in mid-latitudes.
Thirdly, while the present concerns over increased exposure in the United Kingdom as a result of ozone depletion at this time of the year are unfounded, in global terms there are data to indicate that skin cancers, cataracts and other eye problems and immune suppression would become more prevalent if ozone depletion continued, particularly if it extended towards the currently unaffected tropical regions.
Finally, the research base on effects on plants and natural ecosystems is far from well developed. There is some scientific consensus that increased UVB might overall tend to depress crop production yields, but precise estimates are difficult given the myriad other factors which affect the performance of agricultural crops. Similar arguments apply to natural ecosystems, including the oceans and phytoplankton, the basis of the ocean food chain.
There is considerable research in hand around the world, and within the United Kingdom science base, particularly the research programmes of the Natural Environment Research Council and the research programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. The general areas for concern are well identified and have been summarised in the recent impact assessment carried out under the Montreal protocol. The active interest and co-operation in this area is well illustrated by the session on ozone depletion and UVB effects being held in April this year at the Lancaster meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology, which the DOE is supporting.
The study of UVB impacts on plants and ecosystems is particularly difficult, because laboratory results are not easily extrapolated to the real world.

Mr. Dalyell: That is true.

Mr. Baldry: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the correctness of that.
The research into this matter involves some difficult areas of science. Other factors such as competition between species and pathogens and nutrient supply may well dominate. Results are being obtained steadily. I will, for example, be particularly interested to hear from our specialists an evaluation of the studies of impacts on Antarctic plankton reported by scientists from the university of California last month. However, we must expect progress towards confident quantitative predictions of effects to be slow in this difficult area of research.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the Government are greatly concerned about the possible effects of ozone depletion. Misleading and unwarranted scares about health impacts in the United Kingdom in

winter are not helpful in developing a better appreciation of the real problems on which much further work needs to be done. There is no element about which we are complacent.
Action on controlling ozone-depleting substances does not depend on more research on either the science or effects of ozone depletion. Last December, we proposed that the European Community should support an earlier phase out of ozone-depleting substances when the Montreal protocol is reviewed this year. The Community will decide its position this month and the Government will be urging other member states to support the toughest possible measures.
The hon. Gentleman said that other member states seem to be taking tougher measures than we are. I suppose that the member state that is most frequently mentioned is Germany, which, in common with us, is a producer of CFCs and has a law for phase-out in individual sectors. Its law is extremely complex and it has many exemption clauses. Germany's position on phasing out CFCs by the end of 1993 is far from clear. Officials from my Department attended a major conference on CFCs in Berlin as recently as 24 to 26 February, at which German industry representatives and the German Government, including the Minister for the Environment, Dr. Klaus Topfer, were present in force. However, no mention was made at any stage of a 1993 phase-out.
The United Kingdom is committed to phasing out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and others by the end of 1995 at the latest and halons by the end of 1994. Both United Kingdom producers have stated that they will cease production of those chemicals no later than the end of 1995. My hon. Friend the Minister of State proposed to the European Community Environmental Council in December that the protocol's phase-out dates be brought forward to the end of 1994 for halons and the end of 1995 for CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and tricholoroethane methyl chloroform.
It has often been asked why we do not ban CFCs straightaway. An immediate ban would not be practicable for a number of applications. For example, medical aerosols such as asthma inhalers still use CFCs: they cannot use recycled materials. We are determined to phase them out as soon as it is humanly possible. We are working closely with our EC colleagues and it is important, now that we have a single European market, to achieve that aim.
The depletions in stratospheric ozone that has so far been detected, our imperfect understanding of the science, and the evidence so far available on the possible impacts of ozone depletion are sufficient reasons for minimising as far as possible any further build-up of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere. That is the objective that the Government will pursue as we approach the next review of the Montreal protocol.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.